Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rex071404 and Nysus

Rex071404 and Nysus

I am requesting mediation with user Nysus. I need help breaking a log jam as to who's questions to the other are the FIFO predicate to being able to honestly restore the dialog. It seems that Nysus insists I must answer him questions 1st, whereas I am pursuaded that he is asking loaded questions which would be moot if he would simply answer certain ones I have already posed. This discussion has been regarding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rex0171404, before any formal mediation happens, based on what you've said and a review of the extremely lengthy talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I'd like to suggest that the next step is to go ahead and answer Nysus's questions, and to do it in the spirit of assuming good faith. If, in fact, your presumption that he is asking loaded questions is correct, and that furthermore Nysus does not answer your questions, it will be clearer what the next step should be.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Bcorr. I am very willing to work with Rex on this issue. As the record has shown, I have been very patient with him on this matter and I will continue to be until this matter is resolved. --Nysus 18:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) (crossposted to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation from User talk:Rex071404 by BCorr|Брайен 19:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) )

Rex was not specific about which questions of mine he thinks were loaded. I will try to clear the clutter of our lengthy SBVT talk by saying the only question important to me at this point is the one I just wrote below: Is my compromise language acceptable to him? --Nysus 21:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex placed a RfC with the following question: Should the year "1971", in referrence to the year of John Kerry's Senate testimony about Vietnam, be included in the 1st paragraph introduction on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article?

As I have stated repeatedly in the SBVT talk, I have no problem mentioning the year in that sentence. However, I feel Rex placed it into the sentence in such a way that it made it inaccurate. I stated so in the discussion and proposed compromise language to address the inaccuracy. I was unable to get Rex to finish discussion of my compromise language because he shifted the debate over to whether the phrase "questioning" or "calling into question" was better. Earlier, another user, Wolfman, proposed that the phrase "attacking" be used instead of "questioning". Although this wasn't the topic of the original debate between Rex an I (the year 1971 was), I created compromise language that addresses that dispute, too.

My compromise language reads: This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."

I would like to ask Rex if this language is acceptable to him. --Nysus 21:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wait, has formal mediation not started? I now see that Bcorr wrote "before any formal mediation happens." If not, you can delete my above statement/question. Thanks. --Nysus 21:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the current exchange allows you to reach an understanding, then by all means please continue. If this gets too long, I will move it to a subpage of this page, though. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am going to review the talk page in question and then post in a numbered list, the questions I feel Nysus has not answered. When I do this, I expect him to answer each and every one of them contemporaneously on this page (or whichever page Bcorr directs us to place our work product on). If Nysus only answers me along the lines of "I've answered that already", without actually giving an on-point, to the merits, contemporaneous answer to each question, or if he does not answer them all, I will at that point, no longer "assume good faith" towards him. Also, if he posts a numbered list of questions for me, I will answer them, subject to the condition that my replies are not binding on me unless and until Nysus also answers my entire list. Additionally, I set the condition that if each does answer all of the other's questions, then our answers are binding towards consensus on the SBVT talk page. That said, I hope to post my list later tonight, after I have time to prepare it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr, I believe you recommended that Rex answer my question when you stated: "I'd like to suggest that the next step is to go ahead and answer Nysus's questions." So, I asked the question. Do you think it is a fair question? And please correct me if you feel I misinterpreted your response above.

To date, I have answered all of Rex's questions as you'll see in the discussion at SBVT. I have gone out of my way to try to explain my reasoning to him. To be fair to me and my time, I believe that he should answer the one question about the compromise language that I have been asking him for the last 2 days that he consistently avoids. Please advise. --Nysus 00:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nysus, before any formal mediation happens, based on what you've said and a review of the extremely lengthy talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I'd like to suggest that the next step is to go ahead and answer Rex0171404's questions, and to do it in the spirit of assuming good faith. If, in fact, your presumption that he is asking loaded questions is correct, and that furthermore Rex0171404 does not answer your questions, it will be clearer what the next step should be.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused by your guidance here. You have given the same guidance to both parties. I have assumed good faith on the part of Rex and continue to assume good faith. I have never stated that he is asking loaded questions and I have gone out of my way to answer them. However, he has not answered my single question. So what is the next step?

--Nysus 14:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In regards to Nysus's "compromise language" which (as shown above) curently reads: This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress." , while this mediation is waiting for my quesitons to Nysus (which I expect will number approximately three and most likely no more than five), I offer my response to the implicit (though not directed to me) question by Nysus of "I would like to ask Rex if this language is acceptable to him", as shown above. My answer to that is:

1. This question by Nysus in an improper attempt to pin me to a particular choice he offers, all the while addtional discussion by the group on this very topic, goes on here
2. As I see it, Nysus has "offered" this "comprise" text in or for about 5 or 6 different flavors or rationales since this discussion started.
3. Had Nysus simply not begun deleting the "1971" which I placed into the article some edits back, we would not have faced this discussion. In fact, Nsysus has already conceded he was being "nitpicky" in his efforts to remove this date.
4. Frankly, is make no sense to me that Nysus would endeavor to remove the bona-fide fact that 1971 was indeed the year of Kerry's Congressional testimony about Vietnam, simply because he had problems with the way the sentence was formed. To me, the solution there is to re-edit the sentence - not rmeove the 1971 date. It is irrefutable that Kerry did indeed testify in 1971.
5. Suffice it to say, I have gone over this and over this (and other points) on the talk page, when even when asked direct questions by me, Nysus seems to be fixated on an imagined FIFO (first in, first out) predicate to certain questions of his - all the while refusing to admit that in the logic of our dialog, it was HIS DELETION of the 1971 fact which occured 1st, and therefore, which must be cleared up 1st.
6. And finally, as evidenced by this edit here it is pretty clear to me that Nysus has as a primary interest and objective, partisan edits which relate to election 2004.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see Rex making my point. He refused to state whether or not he agrees with my compromise language. He clearly is not willing to try to reach compromise and is going to great lengths to avoid it. Again, I will offer him another opporunity to respond to my compromise language: Rex, is my compromise language acceptable to you? Do you feel it is superior to the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph? Why or why not? --Nysus 16:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In light of my reason #1 as cited above (referring to the ongoing group dialog on this topic), my answer to Nysus's question of "Rex, is my compromise language acceptable to you?", is: While the group still discussing this, I've yet to decide. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now comes Rex071404 and poses two questions for Nysus: In regards to this edit of yours here, please tell me:

1. If indeed, as shown by your edit summary, your rv of my edit was "nitpicky and minor", why did you do it anyway? Please explain.
2. It is my understanding that Kerry has given actual testimony about Vietnam in 1971 only. Does your understanding on this point differ? If so, please explain.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Has Nysus quit?

It has now been 12 days since I asked my (2) questions of Nysus here. To date, there has been no reply. Are we to presume that Nysus has quit? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)