Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fuel injection


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 06:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: one party has withdrawn and no longer agrees to mediation.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 21:55, July 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Articles involved

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

  • Attempt at discussing dispute on article talk page: Here per Wikipedia:Negotiation suggestions.
  • Attempt to directly address problem via editor user talk page: Here again per WP:DR.
  • An attempt by both parties to step back from the dispute occured for several months per WP:DR, the matter seemed dead and buried for some time. It has however resurfaced and shows no signs of being resolved at present without mediation as one party is no longer responding to the others attempts at discussion.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

  • Should this [1] version of the mechanical diagram on the fuel injection page be used or should this [2] version be used?
  • Should the author of the static diagram be given a copyright acknowledgement on the image page of the animated diagram as it is essentially based upon the static version?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

  • additional comments here

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC).
  2. Agree Cuddlyable3 06:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to Ryan Postlethwaite's offer

Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), an experienced administrator, has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and to assess his nomination. However, as Ryan Postlethwaite is not a member of the Committee just yet, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Ryan Postlethwaite mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above. Voting will last seven days from today (09:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)). On all accounts, I encourage you to take Ryan Postlethwaite's offer, however the choice is, of course, yours.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 09:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. On the first issue ([3] or [4]): Agree; On the second issue (copyright implications): Disagree Cuddlyable3 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

Before the Committee accepts this request, I want it to be known that we will not tolerate any kind of comment removals on the mediation page. Mediation works through open discussion, and to allow maximum focus on the content dispute at hand, it is unlikely that mediation will be effective if the dispute shifts to conduct (and the RfM will be closed if it does, because the Mediation Committee does not deal with conduct disputes). So, as I said, before I accept this case I want you to be aware of this fact.
I'll be accepting this case at around 00:00 23 July, on behalf of the Committee, provided neither party wishes to withdraw their agreement to mediation given what I've written above.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)