Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/23 November 2011/

Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion%27s_share

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Annielogue
 * User:Mzilikazi1939
 * User:Dream Focus

What is the dispute?
The issue concerns the article's final section, presently titled "Other related Eastern fables". User Dream Focus has consistently deleted earlier versions of this under various pretexts, although his general point is that a fable that does not feature an aggressive lion does not constitute a valid analogy. The two other parties, both of whom specialise in articles on fables (particularly those of Aesop) contend that this is to misunderstand how fables change over time and geographical distances.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
Talk page discussion started in November 2010 and now extends over 3 sections under the general heading "I removed a section about unrelated moral tale". The second section contains a third opinion called for by Dream Focus. This concentrated on correct WP procedure and involved someone arguably without specialist knowledge of the field concerned.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
From the admittedly biased point of view of the complainant, it seems that WP procedures are being cited to reinforce a prejudice and that no real effort is being made by the deleting editor to understand the issues involved.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Please contact someone with an informed knowledge of folklore and the wide variations that can occur between similarly themed accounts. We do not ask for someone who is sure to agree with one side or the other but for someone who understands the reasoning being advanced and with the wisdom to propose an accaptable solution.

And finally: – It seems to two of us, who met by chance on WP and have been collaborating and accepting compromises together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect for some time, that this is common sense. We do not suggest that the third of us does not.