Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-19/Boston College

Where is the dispute?
The Wikipedia page for Boston College

Who is involved?
user:Arverniking

What is the dispute?
If you review the history, he or she has continuously and repeatedly changed the page.

A central issue is with his or her introductory paragraph. This person insists on usuing a poorly worded, nonrepresentative description of a university and supporting the claim ("Jesuit research university") with a reference that does not back it up--it indicates strengths, but specifically does not include "Research." Also, the tense and style are then very awkward. There is a revised version of this small section, consistent with what it has said previous to the user's advent, and now supported by valid sources. It should be used.

However, he or she keeps erasing and reposting a less than "good faith effort..."

I left a note on the user's talk page, but it has been erased once already.

What would you like to change about this?
1) Opening paragraph with consistent tense, representative information, consistent with content that has long been presented in the same space. 2) A 'disambiguation' link for "nearby and similarly named educational institions" allowing a reader quick access to a page about "Education in Boston." 3) A picture of buildings displaying Collegiate Gothic architecture to appear in the article where they chronologically should: under the section entitled "Move to Chestnut Hill," after the first paragraph. 4) Lastly, the user has tagged my "Talk page" with an unfounded notice about "Vandalism."

A "good faith" version is how the page looked on July 19 at 3:14.

How do you think we can help?
This is not as obvious a case of vandalism, so a typical administrator probably would be reluctant to step in. However, the user is erasing valid source material and is not currently behaving constructively.

I am not an everyday user, and am taking the time to look through available resources. Hopefully you can help, if not, you should be able to refer me to a person or page that can?

Mediator notes
Since the user in question seems unwilling to discuss the matter with you, it is unlikely that he will consent to a mediation. Have you discussed it with him? Unlike Arbcom, we can't force a user to join the mediation; he must do so willingly. If he consents, I am willing to take the case. If not, I suggest you go to the appropriate noticeboard to get some admin eyes on it. Firestorm Talk 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As of a moment ago, there is a message on the user's talk page regarding the potential for informal mediation. WayGoneOr (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for butting in, but who said that I (assuming that I'm the "user in question") was "unwilling to discuss" anything? I've welcomed User:WayGoneOr, added a stock vandalism template on said editor's talk page with a few helpful guidelines to look over, and have addressed the issue both on his/her talk page as well as at Talk:Boston College. In fact, WayGoneOr's talk page is comprised entirely of my attempts to help inform him/her about what is and is not considered acceptable editing. Am I to understand that there are now not only allegations of "unexplained edits" and "vandalism" against me by WayGoneOr, but of being "unwilling to discuss" anything, as well? Perhaps after seeing my attempts to discuss any potential content dispute on the article talk page, someone can explain to me if I've done anything inappropriate here, beyond using stock vandalism-related templates for the removal of sources, the addition of unsupported material, and other edits that I've seen before. As for my talk page, any experience editor knows that guidelines specify one's right to remove messages on one's own talk page. I rarely do this, but the initial claim seemed silly to me and I expected it to be dropped. --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I misinterpreted what was going on. Are you saying that you consent to mediation? If so, we can begin. If not, then this will need to be taken to a different venue. I would also like to remind both parties that the Mediation Cabal is for content disputes, not user conduct issues (RFC is that way>) Firestorm  Talk 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am. I actually looked about for some procedural guidelines earlier and couldn't locate any, though. All I know is that it's non-binding, which seems a little futile to me, but I won't refuse to consent! I think it's pretty clear that I was acting in the interest of various guidelines, including WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:LEAD, and WP:DAB. About all I can see having done wrong is using templates that contained the word "vandalism". --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this mediation is informal and nonbinding. Since it is informal, there aren't very many rules about how to mediate,a nd every mediator has his or her own style. For this one, i'll begin by asking you both to write one paragraph stating your position for the dispute over the lede of Boston College in the appropriate section below. When writing your statements, please try and keep it about the content issue, not about the user. This isn't about who is right and who is wrong; this mediation is about two editors who disagree on what is best for the article. Here, we're going to attempt to find a solution together. Firestorm  Talk 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would remind all the parties to exhaust previous dispute resolution avenues such as WP:WQA, WP:3O, and WP:RFC before attempting mediation. It appears that this relatively minor dispute between at least two editors has not pursued these paths as of yet. It appears from my reading of the sitution that Averniking has gone out of his way to demonstrate good faith as well as familiarity with the requisite policies and guidelines to back his arguments and that the discussion should proceed thusly unless the tone and timbre of the arugments changes. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, thank you. I have already accepted the case for Medcab, and WQA and RFC are not really necessary, since this is a small content dispute. Medcab is often the first step in dispute resolution, and I am quite experienced in handling cases like this. Unless you would like to add yourself as a party to this mediation, then i'm just going to proceed with it. Firestorm  Talk 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Averniking
I suppose that I'll pretty much just say what I said once at User talk:WayGoneOr and again at Talk:Boston College. I reverted User:WayGoneOr's edits for a variety of reasons, and was alerted to them because of the tags in my watchlist for the article. One is "(Tag: references removed)" and the other is "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". I determined that there were indeed problems involved with these edits --
 * This edit corrupted a citation and sandwiched text between two images, the latter of which violates MOS:IMAGES. Reverting that edit was not vandalism in any way, shape, or form.
 * This edit involved several issues:
 * It changed the hatnote to read "nearby", which is irrelevant. There is no need to introduce the proximity to disambiguation when the disambiguation refers to the naming, not the location, of the institution, especially when the disambiguation page itself does not concern the location with respect to the institution, but the name taken as a result.
 * It removed the research university comment, which was cited, and the Jesuit comment, which is found in other reliable sources throughout the article, as well as the infobox. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article body, and removing helpful and cited content is generally uncool. (See Talk:Boston College for a broader consensus.)
 * It changed the location from Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts to use only the state name. This is not standard or helpful, per WP:UNIGUIDE. It's certainly not helpful to vaguely refer to Boston as "the capital city" by rather than just saying "Boston", and to, in fact, remove that word from the lead entirely.
 * BC is not "the first institution of higher education established in Boston" per Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. That claim has no source, of which I'm aware, to back it up, and the editor didn't meet the burden of proof anyway.
 * The "source" that was added said it was published by "The University Press", which is not a real press name as far as my research shows and therefore does not meet WP:RS. (See and ). It wasn't linked with a URL, either, which made it difficult to verify in the event of a challenge to its accuracy or reliability.


 * This edit added a piped link to a disambiguation template, which is to be avoided per WP:DAB. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by WayGoneOr
You have asked for one paragraph on one section: the revised lede probably should not change its long standing content--what it needs to do is be far less repetitive so that, for example, it does not say "Boston" in each and every sentence (or repeat Chesnut Hill as the currently posted version does). Instead of repeating Massachusetts, it may subsequently refer to the "Commonwealth (which granted its charter in 1863, the historical significance of this is covered fairly adequately on the talk page, long prior to the other user's advent, and sufficiently addresses his contentions)," and its "capital city." This other person, Averniking, wishes to introduce the article with a phrase that is not used any place else, and is probably insulting to readers and others with closer ties: "private Jesuit research university." Further, he or she puts a source right in the middle of the statement that specifically describes: "Private, not-for-profit," and "Basic classification: non-science & engineering R&D expenditures imputed due to nonresponse." To me, this is non-blatant vandalism. The second sentence that he or she keeps posting is still a little awkward, as the use of tense has obviously needed work :-). While the main campus, to my knowledge, includes an historical district, it would be better to specify that it "contains," or "exhibits one of the earliest examples of Collegiate Gothic...," rather than "...is one of..." because there are other styles and things there.  Lastly, reference to an in print source, as well as an online one, that buttress facts about the establishment of the university that probably do not need to be defended, have been erased.WayGoneOr (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede
Alright, so much of the lede controversy hinges upon grammar and how to classify the school, especially with its Jesuit ties and research specification. Is this a fair assessment of the situation? If so, I strongly suggest that everyone cease using the word "vandalism." It is clear to me that both of you are acting in good faith, so such a word is inaccurate and likely to hinder progress here. I'm going to paste the ledes used by each of you below, so we can discuss them right here. It is my understanding that the first is Arverniking's version and the second is from WayGoneOR:

"Boston College (BC) is a private Jesuit research university located in the village of Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Its name still reflects its early history as a liberal arts college and preparatory school in Boston's South End, before moving west to its current location. Its main campus in Chestnut Hill is one of the earliest examples of collegiate gothic architecture in North America."

"Boston College (BC) is a private university located in the state of Massachusetts. Its historic campus exhibits one of the earliest examples of Collegiate Gothic architecture in North America. Although chartered as a university by the Commonwealth in 1863, its name is reflective of its early history as a liberal arts college and preparatory school in the capital city's South End. BC is the first institution of higher education established in Boston, having moved to Chestnut Hill in 1909 upon outgrowing facilities at its original address."

Firestorm Talk 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I have not seen a resource that clearly identifies the institution as a "Research university," or even emphasizes a "Research specification." On the Wikipedia page, its religious affiliation is already appropriately presented in the upright rectangular box on the top right.  Even the source that the other user utilizes does not categorize the university as such, though.  Thus, controversy surrounding classification does not make sense here.


 * Yes, grammar is centrally important.


 * 2) You have listed the responsible party for each respective version of the lede. WayGoneOr (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an entirely fair assessment of the situation. Yes, there are more guideline violations with respect to the lead, but that's not the "hinge" IMHO. The hinge is upon the fact that all three edits violated one or more guidelines, to which I referred to in my "statement": WP:UNIGUIDE, MOS:IMAGES, WP:DAB, WP:RS, &c. That said, we do need to have a lead that works. The current version reads:
 * "Boston College (BC) is a private Jesuit research university located in the village of Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Its name reflects its early history as a liberal arts college and preparatory school in Boston's South End. It is a member of of the 568 Group and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Its main campus features some of the earliest examples of collegiate gothic architecture in North America."
 * As you can see, the main campus bit has been re-worded and the second use of "Chestnut Hill" removed. Of course, the comment above is the very first time those specific concerns have been raised. Now that the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities has been added to the lead, removing the first "Jesuit" bit might make sense, too. But as for those specific points above:
 * 1a) WayGoneOr, the version quoted by Firestorm above uses a citation, so this this claim that you have "not seen a resource" is bogus. I informed you of this when you removed it the second time, and more specifically addressed it the third time you removed it. The reference is now found at Boston College. There's also a discussion going on about its clarification going on at Talk:Boston College, in which your account has never participated despite my admonition that you take your concerns to the talk page of the article. Besides, the use of the Carnegie classification is also corroborated by the National Center for Education Statistics.
 * 1b) As for "Jesuit" and the infobox, the lead and the infobox are both designed to act as summaries, not replacement for the article content, or each other.
 * 1b) I agree that grammar is important, but I see no grammatical errors, and the edits in question clearly went beyond grammatical fixes.
 * 2) What is the relevance of this statement? If we're to have a mediator, could he/she perhaps "police" the addition of irrelevant comments? It's patronizing and inefficient. --King of the Arverni (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For comment 2, he was just confirming that I was correct in stating who wrote which version of the lede. Anyway, since the Association of Jesuit Colleges an dUniversities has been mentioned, we can safely remove the word "Jesuit" from the first sentence. Are we all in agreement with that? If so, we can then move on to the research issue.  Firestorm  Talk 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done -- haha, I can't believe any mediation was necessary to accomplish that (then again, I can see how it might make some people feel as if they've gained something by "reporting" others instead of simply informing others of their perspective). Thanks for the interpretation on #2, Firestorm. I suppose it's always been my philosophy that "silence consents" even when one doesn't agree, so I rarely say anything when there's no conflict. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, what is indicated regarding this process reflects an improving article, though I am not checking the current version.


 * Without being harsh or hostile, I would like to make it clear that the other user should not invite me anyplace else in his or her digital world; or assume that I do not prefer to act through the help of our arbitrator.WayGoneOr (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WayGoneOr, never have I assumed that you "do not prefer to act through the help of our arbitrator." To the contrary, it seems that you are overly dependent on wasting my time through arbitration without ever having discussed any of these issues with me, despite my efforts to do so with you . I certainly haven't "invited" you do anything "in [a] digital world" beyond encourage you to discuss per WP:TALK re: Boston College. That said, I'm glad you are able to agree on the most recent edit. I would ask you to start formatting your comments properly, however, since you've seen enough to understand how it works by now. --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a few points of order. First, i'm a mediator, not an arbitrator. We're working collaboratively to find a solution that all parties can agree to, not imposing solutions that make nobody happy. Second, please keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal is focused on content issues, not user conduct (that way). So, please keep in mind that any discussion of each others' conduct is likely to hinder our efforts. Third, it seems that the Jesuit issue is cleared up. Now, on to the research issue. What reference do we have that tells us something about research? Firestorm  Talk 01:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources include the The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching per and the National Center for Education Statistics per, as well as the American Physical Society per , at least one book, the Chronicle of Higher Education per , and a BC-provided source hosted on the City of Boston's website. Each are reliable sources and the Foundation and NCES are often used by WP:UNI -- the Foundation is currently the source used in the article, and was when WayGoneOr sought to remove it.  --King of the Arverni (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * #10 listed does classify the school as a "Research university," excuse me for overlooking it. However, as I have pointed out, the page concludes with a statement that figures are estimated because adequate data is lacking--specifically it sounds like they have sent surveys and not gotten them back filled out with facts.  #11 says nothing obvious!  #12 affirms that university does not have the reputation of a place that is known for research (See first sentence of summary, for example).  #13 is not opening up into an active web page, and neither is the last one.


 * If you care to emphasize the university's strengths, it is fair to describe it as competitive, as undergraduate admissions are quite selective. However, this may not be appropriate?


 * Firestorm, so far you are doing a terrific job as a mediator :-) WayGoneOr (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. The Carnegie Classifications are as authoritative as it gets; they are widely used and respected by higher education scholars and researchers.
 * 2. Describing the institution as selective would probably not be acceptable in the lead, especially without a really good source.  We've discussed this many times in different college and university articles and that is usually the consensus (which usually results in the removal of selectivity-related adjectives from the lead).
 * 3. I am shocked and offended that the three of you think that you can decide amongst yourselves the content of this article with no input from any of the other editors who watch and edit it.  --ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting on the situation. The Carnegie classification seems reliable to me, and I also agree that "selective" would not be appropriate for the lede. As for the existence of this case, there is currently a dispute (that had been bordering on an edit war) between two users, concerning the lede to this article. This mediation is to settle that content dispute. Other editors are, of course, welcome to comment as well. Official parties to the mediation are those who have been participants in this dispute, not everyone who watches and edits the article. I didn't see you in the edit history when this edit warring was occurring, so you are not a party. As I said, though, your input is welcome. Firestorm  Talk 04:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Lead. Yes, the Carnegie classification should be sufficient, which is why I reverted it and left a "potential problem user" welcome message for WayGoneOr. As for whether or not I "care to emphasize the university's strengths," that's not necessarily the case. What I care to do is use as many third-party, reliable sources as possible to produce neutral and verifiable encyclopedic content.
 * Re: Mediation. I hate that I'm involved in mediation, but I'm willing to go along with it if it's necessary. That's nothing against you Firestorm, since you're doing just fine, but I'm sure you have better things to be doing, too. I just wish that WayGoneOr had used the talk page as I recommended. He/she told me that "This matter is being referred to an appropriate place" (which I expected to be the talk page, over at WP:UNI, or even another editor's talk page for their opinion) when I thanked him/her for it. Then, it became obvious WayGoneOr had no intention of discussing it first when he/she told me that "As some of your edits are not viewed as constructive, and I do not appreciate your allegation of 'Vandalism,' it is not sensible to attempt a direct dialogue" and brought it here. Each time I've broached this issue, it's certainly not been to cast any aspersion on Firestorm or attempt to turn this into a comment on users; I'm trying to point out that the discussion I started at Talk:Boston College would've been a more appropriate second step -- well, perhaps I expected a potential mediator to recommend that. I agreed to this mediation because I'd already been falsely accused of refusing to dialogue and I didn't want to be uncooperative. --King of the Arverni (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to further participate in this mediation as this is the wrong place to hold this conversation. It belongs on the Talk page of the article where all of the interested parties can view and participate in the discussion. Doing here in the shadows under the presence of an authority figure to mediate the discussion goes entirely against the community standards of transparency and collaboration for which we strive. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Returning to the section, there evidently is ground to outwardly classify the institution as a research university. It would really be my preference if there was some external commentary that described it that way without reservation, though.  As such, my opinion is that the Carnegie reference belongs in the article, but maybe should not be listed within the opening words, or "Lede?" WayGoneOr (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, so your ideal solution would be to have it in the lede somewhere, but maybe not in the opening sentence? Arverniking, is that acceptable to you? Firestorm  Talk 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It's hard to tell most of the time, but it seems that when WayGoneOr says "the Carnegie reference belongs in the article, but maybe should not be listed within the opening words, or Lede," he/she think that it could also be removed it from the lead entirely. The latter option would make sense in WayGoneOr's opinion, because that's what he/she has been doing. So, there are two options presented by this editor.
 * 2) As for both, though Firestorm, my answer to your question is "no, not really." It's what BC is, for goodness' sake. Where else would it go and how else would it be phrased? A redundant "Boston College (BC) is a private university in the village of Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. It is a research university...."? And it's already in the article body, so the lead probably should refer to it per WP:LEAD. No, there's no reason to move or remove it except for WayGoneOr's neverending challenge to have this one version (also favoured by an editor who called reverts of his/her version "vandalism"):, , , . There are earlier drafts of attempts to remove the affiliation, the type of institution, and the location: , , . All were reverted on various occasions by various editors. I couldn't care less about BC, but I do care about UNI article quality. There's no way anyone can argue that removing it would improve the article, and, while I'm always open to suggestions, see little reason why it should be moved, either.
 * 3) Yes, I'm tempted to withdraw, as well, but I won't (yet). This sort of thing seems to encourage editors who violate guidelines to waste others' time rather than spend their own reading those guidelines, most of which exist for good reason, and learning from the experience. Links to them have certainly been provided. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My sense of things is that we are making progress, and the lead section continues to improve. I would encourage the moderator to proceed.  [If anyone finds anything that favorably elucidates about productive research, I would encourage it to be included also. (Most likely, the real world addition of faculties of medicine, engineering, or computer science would facilitate increased academic output)].  WayGoneOr (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose in babbling about how BC should add engineering and medical schools? Does it have something to do with the article? I can't believe that I waste my time with bothering to respond to this. --King of the Arverni (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1
What if, instead of stating "research university," we tack "It is known for specializing in research(ref)" or something similar to the end of the lede? Would that be acceptable to both parties? Firestorm Talk 01:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, "research university" is standard terminology and that's how it's classified by definitive sources. "It is known for specializing in research" is cumbersome, unnecessary, and could constitute WP:OR. I'd also rather not comb through pages of Google search again to see if we can find a source to meet WP:V for it, and let's not forget that we've already met the WP:BURDEN for "research university". Come to think of it, that unwieldy and unverified sentence also implies more of a special-focus institution, in WP:UNI terms. --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no serious issue with "Research university." And, not to be repetitive:  I agree with Averniking :-). WayGoneOr (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. If you two agree with each other, then why exactly are we here? We can just leave Research University here then. Moving on? Firestorm  Talk 04:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's the question I've been asking! :-P Yes, please, let's move on. :-) --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambig link
Number Two on WayGoneOr's "What would you like changed" response is "A 'disambiguation' link for "nearby and similarly named educational institions" allowing a reader quick access to a page about "Education in Boston." We already have some of that with a template at the bottom of the article, but other possible ways to implement that are a sentence in the lede, or a hatnote. Either of those would link to List of colleges and universities in metropolitan Boston. Any suggestions on how to best implement this, or is this not even a disputed issue? Firestorm  Talk 05:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, why would we need to incorporate the list in the lead? First, that's what the navbox is for. Second, disambiguation is not based on location but based on name (you don't see every Boston-area college with a hatnote to a piped "education in Boston" for a good reason), so any hatnote should not be location-oriented but name-oriented (the reason for the hatnote is the fact that other schools have "Boston" and "college" in their name. Otherwise, Quincy College would need something like WayGoneOr suggests, as well as Boston University, Cambridge College, and so on -- that unwieldiness is the very reason WP:UNIGUIDE requires editors not to disambiguate the article names without naming conflicts). Now, I agree that it's helpful to have the hatnote, but in addition to my aforementioned objections, I'm also fairly certain that WP:DAB outlines that disambiguation links are not to be piped. --King of the Arverni (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The original link led to a page that | was, in my opinion, appropriate. That "Disambiguation (what it says in the web browser's address bar)" specifically listed schools that are closely identified with Boston by name and location, two attributes that were central to the lead.  Thus I sought to accurately describe content with attention to the spirit of the text below, and not be too repetitive (about the school's name).  The referenced page provides a link to the listing of colleges and universities in the surrounding metropolitan area.


 * Our moderator listed two options for presenting relevant information: in the lead, or as a hatnote.  I second the latter option. However, if there are problems under the rules, there is no objection here to removing it entirely; or moving it to the template at the bottom (where I am having trouble locating similar content).  The link that pertains to a valid "Naming conflict" would remain, though?    WayGoneOr (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think our problem here might be bigger than us (or this article, at least). I'm confused as to why the MetroBoston link is used for the dab page, unless we assume that because it's "Boston" and "college" then anyone could be looking for the words in conjunction. I'd almost prefer using Boston College (disambiguation) or something, since that gets to the heart of the naming matter most directly. Besides, there's already one Boston College (England), so a separate dab page might be appropriate. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm standing by the issue with piping dab links, but I take back my bit about name vs. location, since one is obvious tied to the other. How does the dab page look now? --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be what is needed by the rules, but to me, the only real confusion that would arise involves the identically named schools in different English-speaking nations. All of the other institutions listed are uniquely discernable.  The content is relevant, but the suggestion that they are specifically alluded to is probably off target.WayGoneOr (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't seeking your approval for the already valid dab page; I was asking about the article. Besides, nothing needs to be "specifically alluded to" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to be disambiguated. That said, your sentence structure and word choice make little to no sense to me -- especially that last bit -- so it's hard to address any valid concerns you may have. --King of the Arverni (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the second line from the top of the disabiguation page, that ends in a colon, that I take issue with. No one should be confusing Boston College with the University of Massachusetts at Boston. WayGoneOr (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one will -- that's the purpose of a disambiguation page. Where is our mediator, anyway? --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm here, at WikiConference 2009. I'll be around later. Firestorm  Talk 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am no expert in mediation, but feel that the article can be improved without the persistence of this other party--or other questionable, and excessively repetitive efforts. 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WayGoneOr, you seem to imply that mediation can be done without a mediator, which really defies the meaning of the term. Of course, your second sentence could indicate that your first sentence is meant to imply that mediation can be done without conflict, which would eliminate the need for mediation. --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can request a new mediator? Hopefully Firestorm is maintaining his or her health, and is free of any emergency-type of situation, but I think we have reasonably waited for satisfactory help?WayGoneOr (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am here, and i'm just fine, thank you for the well wishes though. You two seem to be debating it just fine (or you were, until a week ago). As long as you keep discussing it and negotiating the details, this mediation is coming along just fine. I seem to see agreement that there needs to be a link somewhere to an article about education in Boston. The questions that need to be answered are "How?" and "Where?" Since i'm not involved in this page, its up to you two to decide the best implementation for the link, yes? Firestorm Talk 02:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the main problems here is that this other party is not being very helpful. You say to stop using the word "Vandalism," though.


 * Unfortunately, we have skipped the part about the university being the first established in Boston. Information about its charter under the Commonwealth has been erased. If it is true that there is a historic district included on campus grounds, relevant information is worthy of consideration for attention in the lead (maybe as its own paragraph).


 * This process is time-consuming, and equivocating about obvious issues, such as what a university's name explicitly refers toward, is not especially rewarding--and frankly detractive. WayGoneOr (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of response here, my impression is that the page can be revised without what I would describe as interference by this other party? The things specified above await being addressed:  appropriate text for the hatnote and content contained in the link, and also a separate paragraph introducing the historical significance of the university and its campus?


 * The matter of the unwelcome comments on my user page remains. WayGoneOr (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Arverniking doesn't seem to be responding, unless he does within a few days i'm going to close the case. I'm happy to discuss the issues with you 1-on-1 though, if you like. Firestorm  Talk 02:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would prefer if it were closed as you describe. Your subsequent parlance would likely be helpful.  WayGoneOr (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, this section is about the dab link (which shouldn't be piped, as I've already pointed out per WP:DISAMBIG, and to which WayGoneOr's only legitimate concern above is that it "No one should be confusing" BC with UMB -- which they won't because it's disambiguated). Second, WayGoneOr keeps complaining about this "vandalism" and "unwelcome comments" BS and describing others' edits with nonspecific "not being very helpful", as well as implying that he/she should edit without "interference by this other party". Third, I've clearly demonstrated that I don't mind input from WayGoneOr if it meets guidelines, but WayGoneOr's statements sound a lot like perceived ownership to and he/she hasn't made a single edit on Wikipedia that isn't BC-related (SPAs aren't inherently bad, but often linked with editing that doesn't follow guidelines). As for the most recent comment on content (albeit not dab-related), BC does not need an entire paragraph on the historic district in the lead -- there's a sentence and a link -- the most it would need is another sentence, if that. If this mediation were going somewhere, I'd consider staying. Otherwise, Firestorm and I can let WayGoneOr get back to editing and easily enough explain core content guidelines to WayGoneOr if/when he/she has a problem following them. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but even one of your most recent revisions is problemmatic (partially for an awkward link; also, in most other places, "Collegiate Gothic" is capitalized). I am searching all through NPS.gov and not finding a listing--though it does surface on the "Unofficial web site, nationalhistoricregister.com"  It appears that the entire Wikipedia page that you are referencing may be invalid (though I admit the National Register's web site is new to me).
 * This issue is entirely separate from the legitimate, cited information that you insist on erasing. WayGoneOr (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting old. 1) It's never come up as an issue, but the link has been there the entire time. Stick to what's being mediated here. 2) I don't care if it should be capitalised. I wouldn't have opposed capitalisation. Stop whining and fix it, since it doesn't violate any guidelines. 3) If you have an issue with a cited article, take it up there, not with me. If you're new to the NRHP then you're pretty green, so try to remember that before you try to impose your article versions. Either way, I'm out of here. This whole thing is useless because a) we're fighting (or WayGoneOr wishes us to be fighting) over capitalisation, of all things, and b) other issues that are entirely new. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If, as he says, he is finally leaving, the case can finally be closed without the continuing chore? WayGoneOr (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)