Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-17 Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

Who are the involved parties?

 * LaGrandefr(me)
 * PericlesofAthens, Bertport

What's going on?

 * LaGrandefr's arguments are constantly deleted, despite many sources cited.
 * Random modification of scholars' arguments and conclusion.
 * Large use of irrelevant ideological accusal.

What would you like to change about that?
I propose giving the only authorisation of edit the page Tibet during the Ming Dynasty to administrators, and other users provide the arguments to them. I think the article can stay stable only in this way and the vandalism can be finally stopped.

Mediator notes
Administrators cannot fully protect one version of an article indefinitely, it's not in our protection policy. Mediation is the best course of action to try to resolve the content dispute. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although semi-protection might be a good idea if there is obvious vandalism. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't classified directly as vandalism. It's a content dispute between registered editors, therefore semi protection would have no effect. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is defined in my dictionary as the intentional and pointless damage and destruction. The present situation is that there's no dispute among the users. The job for each user is to cite the scholars' arguments, but the scholarly arguments that I added are constantly deleted by some users. Shouldn't it be defined as the vandalism?--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, went through the article's talk page. Vandalism is defined here on wiki, fyi. Can you provide some diffs for the text you edited in? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left a small synthesis about the vandalism on Tibet during the Ming Dynasty on the talk page of Steve Crossin at 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC). Since 2 days he hasn't given a clear answer, I'll copy the synthesis here.


 * Since the article is constantly modified and User:PericlesofAthens is used to editing the article little by little, it's difficult to find in which hour or in which day they deleted the arguments added by me. But I still try finding some. It's more evident that the 2 tables, Ming's administrative division in Tibet and the Tibetan lamas appointed by Ming were ceaselessly deleted by someone. Even sourced, some user can still ask the source in deleting the source cited. And if you look here, you'll see "Ming court put to use the policy «managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting more titles and setting up more organs» (因俗以治，多封眾建) over Tibet." modified (deleted already many times). The paragraph "Meanwhile, Chen states that HOU Xian (候顯) was sent by Ming court in 1413 to Tibet, ordering the Phagmodru to give back the Sakya Monastery to Sakya, which shows Ming court has the power to resolve the arguments among the religious sects in Tibet. " and "bestowed a seal to lead all the Buddhists" of "During his stay in Nanjing, Deshin Shekpa was bestowed with the title Great Treasure Prince of Dharma (大寶法王) by Yongle." were also deleted, etc. And this is just a large revision of one time. There're much more if we make the small revision. I had to monitor each sourced argument added by me these days to know if they were deleted or not. It's very exhausting!--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope this mediation could help and might be neutrally resolved. Thanks!--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To call it vandalism would require ignoring the principle of assuming good faith. Nor does it appear like semi-protection is required, as one of the requirements to become a FA is stability, and this article just passed its FAC yesterday (congratulations to all involved!)

LaGrandefr, I have started to read through the discussion page and your talk page to follow what has been happening. It seems that there has been a rather lengthy (and increasingly hostile) content dispute—have any issues been resolved so far? What I'm asking is, at this point in time, what sentences that have been removed would you still like to see in the article? And would you please provide the reference you used for them? Thank you. clicketyclick yaketyyak 11:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The present situation is that I can no longer edit the page. Once I edit it, some arguments (sourced, like I cited above) would be removed immediately. Owing to this, I'm no more courageous to edit the page, in avoiding more "censure" and waste of my time. The article has been modified in a mess right now, all that relate or not to Ming-Tibetan relations are mixed up together in the article. Personal surmises, ideological accusals are largely used among the arguments. What I want is to improve the article, not just to add my arguments, while some user sticks to their irrelevant and unconstructive arguments. I also proposed to split the article into some new pages, but the template was removed by someone in no time.
 * So, now that the article has already been made featured article, I don't think it's necessary for me to continue to edit the page since I'll risk more easily being accused to be vandalism. For this reason, I decide to quit the article Tibet during the Ming Dynasty and English wikipedia for ever. And this mediation cabal can be also closed. Thank you!--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to respond to you on my talk page since you also messaged me there in order to keep this space uncluttered for possible future problem resolution. clicketyclick yaketyyak 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
The requestor has apparently left Wikipedia. I will close this case and it can be reopened if necessary. --Cabal of one (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No he hasn't. He posted that at 15:42 (UTC) on May 14, but his last comment on my talk page was at 16:49 (UTC) that day, in which he showed a willingness to discuss the situation. Closing this case would be premature. clicketyclick yaketyyak 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 10 days later, and it appears he has left. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I think this a shame, but, what can we do? (sigh). Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)