Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection

message: Thank you both for accepting me as the mediator. I'm Ryan, I live in the UK and I've been here since October 2006, I became an admin in March 2007, and hopefully I can help you both address your differences. There's a couple of issues that we need to address before we start. Where would you like the mediation to occur? We can do it here, on this very page - this would allow everything to be kept on-wiki. Another option is to do it on IRC, this is a more private venue and would allow issues to be discussed in real time. The final option is to do it on the mediation committee's own private wiki, this is an external wiki run by the mediation committee and would be a private venue for everyone to discuss there issues. It's entirely up to you guys as to where you feel most comfortable discussing the dispute. So if it's OK with everyone, let's decide this first, then we can move on to decide what you both wish to have mediated. Please comment below as to where you wish the mediation to take place. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ideally like to do the mediation on this page here, as in the long run its probably best for this to be available for others to view should similar issues arise with or between other editors in the future. However, I am also happy to do it on IRC or a private wiki if Cuddlyable3 would prefer. IRC may be difficult as myself and the mediator are in the UK and I was under the impression cuddlyable3 is in America? the timezone differences may make realtime chat tough and probably sparse. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your co-operation, I think everyone is in agreement that we continue the mediation here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: So everyone is clear what exactly is being mediated, please could both parties make a short statement (75-150 words) on the issues they would like to see discussed in this mediation. There's no need to go into details at this point, just simply put down the issues you wish to be mediated. I've created headings for you to do this under. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again guys, looks like everyone agrees on what we're mediating. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues to be mediated 

message: I agree with: Should this  version of the mechanical diagram on the fuel injection page be used or should this  version be used? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikipedianProlific 

message: Should this  version of the mechanical diagram on the fuel injection page be used or should this  version be used? Cuddlyable3 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again guys, looks like everyone agrees on what we're mediating. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuddlyable3 

message: I replaced the diagram  with an animated one  that shows the solenoid winding and has removed unhelpful lines and legends. Done on 6 March 2007 but it was reverted by WikipedianProlific on 18 March 2007.Cuddlyable3 17:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuddlyable3 

message: Firstly I've added subtitles to this section for each of us, I hope no-one minds, it was just to keep this organised etc and easy to read. Onto buisness, as cuddlyable3 describes there were some initial problems with the static diagram, for example the 'fuel' label was originally called gas, which is an americanism and not ideal for a technical illustration like this. In that time cuddlyable3 redrew it and created the animated version based on the static. I also finally got round to redrawing the static version. I wouldn't say a reversion was made as there was the first diagram (with errors) then the animated diagram and then the revised static diagram without errors. In any case we're left with the decision of which diagram to use in order to close the debate. I like the animated version in principle, but my issue with it is in its quality and accuracy, this is becase of 3 main things;
* The quality of the picture itself in terms of the spotting thats on it, not very encylopedic quality, it certainly wouldnt get featured picture, it might even end up in the bad images category.
* It was based on my original diagram which itself wasn't perfect, it was a 'faux' orthographic projection, meaning it was based on the angle that an orthographic picture would be drawn at but wasn't technically perfect, just drawn roughly by eye. This means that errors in my static version have been carried over and become amplified in the animated version.
* In the animated version there seems to be explusion of fuel as the plunger retracts, but in reality the plunger sucks back and then pushes forward forcing a fine spray of fuel out of the end.
I may have an early solution to the problem however; I was getting geared up to tactically debate this issue but the other day (hence the several day delay in stating my issues) it occured to me tha the reason we can't agree on a diagram is because they are both equally bad, my static one isn't trully orthographic but looks like it ought to be, and it carries less mechanical information than the animated one does, but then the animated version has the above issues. So i mulled it over for a while and came to the conclusion that I think what we need is something which is clearly better, then we will be able to agree obviously. So I have drawn a third diagram which is shown to the side, spending much more time on it to get the attention to detail. This time it is actually orthographic, doesnt have any of the previous animated quality issues and I hope is accurate. Infact the only issues I believe may exist are with technical accuracy, so my question to Cuddlyable3, the mediator and anyone else following this who knows is are you happy with this third diagram, do you believe it is technically accurate, is it high enough quality? are you happy for us to use this diagram?
There are a few small things to note about it;
* This uploaded version isn't labelled yet as I dont want to waste time doing that until we are happy with the illustration.
* The final size will be roughly twice as big as this uploaded one, but this smaller version was just to save server space until a final is agreed on.
I look forward to hearing both of your thoughts on this. thanks. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikipedianProlific 

message: Thank you both for your comments. I believe the main issue with the animated version of the image was the quality of the image, and not particularly an objection to the image being animated. This was a route which I was going to suggest, attempting to find someone to create a better quality animated version if that was quality was the major factor with image. I'm interested to hear both sides thoughts on the new image, is this version one that both would be happy with? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: WikipedianProlific states: ..in reality the plunger sucks back and then pushes forward forcing a fine spray of fuel out of the end. He is mistaken. No suction occurs in the fuel injector depicted. It is a valve not a pump. 
WikipedianProlific states: In the animated version [] there seems to be explusion[sic] of fuel as the plunger retracts..
The actual operating sequence is: 
*i) No current in solenoid, valve closed by spring
*ii)Current in solenoid, valve opens 
*iii)Fuel spray emitted
*iv) Return to i) 
I agree that the 3-step animation looks ambiguous and that this is room for improvement.
WikipedianProlific himself summarised his edits on 17 March 2007 to Fuel_injection as "reverting to old image" and "reverted to old diagram", which he here contradicts by "I wouldn't say a reversion was made". 
If WP has now explicitly lost interest in addressing the issue of version  or  on which he sought mediation and instead seeks aproval of an incomplete and flawed work in progress  then the mediator should declare the mediation failed. Cuddlyable3 09:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuddlyable3 

message: In response I think first we probably need to ignore how we got into this situation in order to move forward else we'll probably end up descending back into the petty name calling again, so whether it was or wasn't a reversion isn't the issue I dont think. Instead I think it lies in the quality and accuracy of which diagram we use. Both old diagrams have some problems with accuracy and quality. This third diagram is in my opinion a composite/hybrid of the best of both the static and animated diagrams, in better quality, at a larger size and generally more aesthetic... or so I was hoping. I have replaced the preliminary version I had up with a more finalised version with labels on it. Perhaps this will make it easier to follow and less of an "incomplete and flawed work". 
I think we should also consult an informed third party in this field to make sure we have the running order of events right, and to see if they agree on the mechanics of it. I would recommend we ask Scheinwerfermann if he would be willing to do this, as he is very active on the fuel injection article and appears to be knowledgable in the subject field. In the mean time I have ammended my diagram to show the running order of events as you suggest it is. Do you now agree that the sequence of events is correct? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikipedianProlific 

message: I now see that the major problem with the original version that WikipedianProlific suggested is the order of events in the animation. For everyone to be happy here, it's best that we first decide on what is the correct sequences of events for the fuel intection process. We have a number of options here, we could seek an outside opinion on the issue from another user that is familiar with the process (obviously, we would need someone that you both agree on), or we could discuss the issue between ourselves here. Firstly, let's see if this can be resolved here. Quite simply, do you agree that the sequence of events is as follows?
*i) No current in solenoid, valve closed by spring
*ii)Current in solenoid, valve opens 
*iii)Fuel spray emitted
*iv) Return to i) 
Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: I beliece Cuddlyable3 is probably right about the sequence and its now the one that is shown in the current '3rd diagram option'. Although in practical terms the diagram has this simplified down to two combined steps:
*i) No current in solenoid, pintel pulled shut by spring blocking the nozzle so no fuel is expelled
*ii)Current in solenoid, pintel opens due to the attractive force towards the solenoid, unblocking the nozzle so fuel is expelled
and then these two just repeat.
This is done in two steps because there are only two 'phases/modes' this type of fuel injector can be in - solenoid on or solenoid off. I think the older animated version appears to be ambigous because it approached these 2 steps with 3 or more images which complicated the cycle. Its easier to approach it as either on, or off if you see what i mean. There is one additional change I plan to make to the current diagram with everyones support which is to replace the label "fuel" with "Pressurised Fuel", this is important because the fact the fuel is under pressure is what causes it squirt out of the other end of the injector when the valve opens, if it werent under pressure it would just dribble out.
I am happy with the 3rd diagram option with the exception of the minor labelling change noted above. I wait to see what Cuddlyable3 makes of it and if they are happy for us to use this diagram then we can move forward from there and implement these plans.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikipedianProlific

message: It looks like we're in agreement that fuel injection works in the following way;
#No current in solenoid, valve closed by spring
#Current in solenoid, valve opens 
#Fuel spray emitted
#Return to 1
Now, the sticking point here seems to be the actual sequence of events that would be shown in the animation. Currently, there is a two phase animation. May I ask the parties thoughts here on creating an animation image which clearly shows all four phases in fuel injection as shown above? (I say four, but it would be three phases, reverting back to phase one). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The image itself

message: We could do, the problem is though it would be slightly deceptive. Heres an analogy, imagine an animation of a light bulb and switch in a simple circuit. Heres the sequence...
#Switch is set to off, no power in the circuit, bulb is off
#Switch is set to on, power in the circuit, ?but bulb is still off?
#Bulb turns on
#Return to 1
You see where the problem lies between the second and third image? In reality the moment the switch is pressed the bulb turns on, but yet the diagram has a delay. This is the same for the injector, i mean obviously theres a nanosecond delay for the electorns in the light switch circuit to reach the bulb, and likewise a nanosecond (if even that?) delay for fuel to be ejected from the spray tip of the injector, but the injector can fire many times per second, so any delay is literally unmeasurably small, so a 3-4 stage animation is deceptive in my opinion, it also seemed to have become the source of confussion in the first animated diagram. It seems better to me to have fuel expelled as soon as the solenoid is on. I am very open on the mater if thats a compromise we deicde, I can easily ammend it to a 3 stage diagram if need be. Personally though I feel that as the injector can only be doing one of two things...i.e be on, or be off, that therefore is what the diagram should show.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikipedianProlific

message: I am encouraged to see that the 7-point checklist is useful. Below are my scores point-by-point for the two diagrams in this mediation, where score=1 means perfectly fulfilled. (This scheme allows fractional scoring, and anyone can extend the table by adding their own scores.)
   	   	
1. 	0.1	0.1
2. 	0  	0.3
3. 	0  	0.7
4. 	0.1	0.8
5. 	0  	0.7
6. 	0  	0
7. 	0  	0
Sum	0.2	2.6
Cuddlyable3 09:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But thats talking about the old diagram? what about the new version?  WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression a third diagram was a suitable solution to the issue on which we are mediating which was Should diagram X or diagram X be used on the fuel injection article. If you are unwilling to discuss a third diagram as an option then I am out of ideas for how we can solve this dispute through mediation, as we previously identified that the problem with the two original diagrams is that neither are wonderfully good. One is technically accurate but very poor quality and one has less technical detail but is of better image quality. However, neither are as accurate or as high quality as the third diagram making it (I thought) a good compromise? So if the mediation decensds into a literal interpretation of Should diagram X or diagram X be used it becomes a pointless discussion. All I want is for the fuel injection article to have the best image we can give it. If mediation becomes a choice between the first two then that isn't the best image we can give it is it? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 13:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to Cuddlyable, of course, this mediation was started due to there being a dispute between two images. However, if a compromise version (i.e. a third image) has been proposed, it's certainly a good idea to discuss that if it helps sort the dispute and you believe it is more factually correct and a better image than the orginial two. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of Diagrams 

message: ::Producing a better image for fuel_injection is an excellent idea that easily follows from my posting "I consider neither  nor  as beyond improvement" in the discussion there on 19 March 2007. A proposed new image can be shown there by anyone and they can be sure that it will be seen and possibly commented or edited by anyone. That is how editors work in Wikipedia and theoretically WikipedianProlific can "even have a shot at featured picture status" that way. I wish good luck to him in that endeavour.
::I announce that I hereby withdraw from this mediation. I thereby refuse to be involved in what is now called "a pointless discussion" that disrupts normal page editing. I also refuse to be drawn into endorsing or criticising a diagram that is not yet completed or brought to Wikipedia in the normal way, which it will have to be. WikipedianProlific will not get help from me here to correct his bad spelling, learn what the pintle does or learn why claims such as "theres a nanosecond delay for the electorns in the light switch circuit to reach the bulb, and likewise a nanosecond (if even that?) delay for fuel to be ejected from the spray tip of the injector" make him appear incompetent.
::In parting I address a complaint to the mediator Ryan Postlethwaite for his misrepresenting my acceptance of mediation on this issue as meaning that it is an issue I have ever disputed.
::Please observe the record: I made an image for the fuel_injection page as part of the continuing process of editing content by which Wikipedia is supposed to operate. This I did properly with an explanation on the discussion page. That is not creating a dispute. It takes two to create a dispute and I am not one of them. It is factual that WikipedianProlific reverted my edit on 18 March 2007 though here you can see him both contradict that he "would call it a reversion" followed by anouncing he doesn't think that is the issue. It looks like to keep up we need to get daily updates on what version of reality happens to be in WikipedianProlific's head. But that is not a dispute and it just looks like irresponsibility to me. I suggest you look at the fuel_injection page and observe what diagram is there, how it got there and who put it there (twice). When you establish that, your next assignment is to find any statement from me that that supports "there being a dispute between two images". I believe the only two persons who create the alleged dispute are WikipedianProlific who I find constantly provocative and, sad to say, our mediator Ryan Postlethwaite who has failed.Cuddlyable3 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In parting I address a complaint to the mediator User:Ryan Postlethwaite for his misrepresenting my acceptance of mediation on this issue as meaning that it is an issue I have ever disputed" — in signing up for mediation (by agreeing on the RfM), you were saying "We are in a dispute about the issues listed, please help us to find a resolution". I find no fault with Ryan's actions in trying to resolve the "dispute" which appeared to exist over the issue. You explicitly agreed for Ryan to assist you in compromising about which, if either, image should be used, so I find your complaint to be frivolous on two grounds. This RfM has been unfortunately closed due to the above, however I encourage Ryan to contact me again so we can possibly have him take another case, pending the acceptance of the Committee for such. Personally, I feel Ryan has acted in a way which had a good-faithed intention to reach a successful compromise. For that, he has my compliments and thanks. Daniel→♦ 06:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cuddlyable3, I'm sorry that you feel that I have misrepresented your acceptance of mediation, but the point of mediation is to discuss all issues at hand and come to some agreements as to how to move forward to solve the dispute. This whole dispute revolves around two images, both with there good and bad points. The idea behind bringing a third image into the equation, was an attempt to try and solve the bad points of both the images in question, it was not meant as an attempt to discredit your work here, or change the course of the mediation - it just seemed like natural progression of the discussion as it looked highly unlikely that either party would find an agreement with the first two images. I still believe that with further discussion here, and compromise from both parties, a good ending is highly possible, I do will however accept your decision to move out of the mediation as it can only work if all parties are happy to move forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dispute. Good luck. Good bye.