Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/VBulletin

Welcome and Thank You

Welcome to Mediation, and thank you for agreeing to mediate. If you could each state your position, in 100 words or less, that'd be great, thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"sorry, I don't know how to make a big post like u guys, oh and I don't remember my pass for "Brandon" --Vbsetup 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just write you're post below Scotsmist, I'll make the section for you, just fill it up. ^Demon, Vbsetup is Brandon if you didn't know. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, you were originally posting as an anonymous contributor when you were posting as Brandon, how could you forget your password to an anonymous account? There was no login info. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did have an account "Brandon" and has posted in that account, then havoc banned me and I never logged back into it.. When I just tried to post the above ^ remark I didn't know my pass, so I just made a new account "vBSetup" - Brandon

Havok's position

In December of 2005 a post was made concerning the external links section of the vBulletin article. Points where made as to which links to keep and which to remove, after after 6 months a consensus was met about which to keep and which to remove. This stayed until the fall of 2006 where Brandon started adding the link to his website vBulletin setup, this was removed by me and several other editors due to WP:NOT link repository, and later WP:EL. He has stated several times that he does not care how many times we remove it, he will keep re-adding it. At the same time people started added commercial links which where also removed. After many months of discussion I decided to remove all unofficial links and add DMOZ as it would be the most fair (at least in my eyes), my view on this entire discussion has been unbiased even though I have been yelled at, and accused of taking sides with vB websites trying to get their links up. All I want out of this is a clean EL section, which I feel we have now, as there is absolutely nothing all these links add to the article other then being spam, ads and otherwise information which can be found on the official site, and in DMOZ. Sorry if this is more then 100 words. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

scotsmist

Its unfair to say that the external links section was created in late 2005 and should be locked and never changed and any links added after that are removed without prejudice. I am more happy with the current page in its locked status. I would like to create a vbportal wiki page and link to it from within the vbulletin page but out of fear of reprisal I am very reluctant to do this and the fact joeychgo has now banned my IP address from his own site without cause stresses my concern that I am have reason to fear prejudice. I have written a great deal of my own opinions in the vBulletin talk page and it would not benefit anyone to repeat it all here. Thank you for taking the time to participate and help us. Scotsmist 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Brandon

Fill in your post here Brandon. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Havok, I think vBulletinSetup should be listed because it is entirely aimed at helping webmaster that run vBulletin by offering installing help and finding of hacks and styles, but mainly to help optimize for search engines. I know I didn't follow the rules when I first found the vb page in wiki, but to tell you the truth, I still don't know how to do anything on wiki. I will not be back if my link is not accepted this time, I feel that b4, other sites where listed with similar info and helpfulness, so I didn't see why mine couldn't be added. BTW at that time, there where only 5 other sites listed, well below what you would call a link directory. Not sure what the other guys have said, but I can fine several 100 wiki pages that have 20-30 links on it, I think having 6 or 7 out going links on the vB page is very acceptable. I guess thats my plea or w/e this mediation thing is. One day I'll fully understand the wiki, but don't let that limit vBulletinsetup from being listed. Also I'd like to make note that the dmoz solution that was submitted isn't really fair IMO, dmoz just Now let submission in after several months of being down. To get listed in DMOZ takes all but luck in same cases to get listed, Please don't use this as an answer to our issue... Thanks - Brandon --Vbsetup 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joeychgo's Position

The concept of only linking to official vBulletin sites and DMOZ does not make any sense and doesnt appear to be supported by Wiki guidelines. We had a consensus once, and the wiki readers shouldnt have to learn of other valuable sites from DMOZ. My opinion remains that any site that is a decent resource to the WIKI reader and is non commercial should be listed.(commerical=primarily selling a product) The purpose of Wiki is to be encylopedic and to offer the reader information and links to further information. If scotsmist wants to have his own wikipage, I have no issue with that. (your not banned by IP to my knowelege) What criteria we use for "decent resource" can be discussed further, but should come from our jodgement not that of DMOZ or Google.

A possibility for compromise?

I see where you all are coming from, and I empathize with your positions on this argument. However, I think I have a good idea. Basioally, we all agree that we can't just throw any link into an article that relates, otherwise some articles would end up having hundreds of external links. I think what will be best would be if we can come up with a set of standards for inclusion of links for the vBulletin article. Just to get us started, let's try working from what were part of the WP:WEB guidelines at one point:

• Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
• A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
• Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

Thoughts? Revisions to these ideas? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well - I agree that some set of standards be agreed upon. I have said this all along. However... They need to be free of outside influence and much ambiguity. Meaning, they shouldnt be based on Alexa, DMOZ, Google or anything else. These are unreliable and ever changing ratings that can in some cases be manipulated. I dont know how national attention can be determined - can I just submit a press release to PR web, and get 'national recognition'? How about something simpler and easier to measure:

• Been established for over 12 months; and/or
• A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; (not sure what you mean by verificable inpact - please explain)
• Be Dedicated to vBulletin Forum Owners (instead of all forum software or something like that) AND BE NON COMMERCIAL. (Im trying to avoid dozens of skin sales sites wanting to be added.) Commercial sites generall offer little or nothing of informational value to the article as they only intend to sell a product and/or support that product.

My next question is this - what happens in 3 months when ABC vB hack company wants their link - do we just start this debate all over again?

Finally - People, you shouldnt care only about if your site is listed. Brandon and Scotsmist this is one problem with your positions in these debates. I am not saying this so your not listed or anything like that. But you have to consider the quality of the wiki page and look to sort problems beyond your own link. Neither of you seem to care much about the page, only if your link is on it. Consider this - and maybe help make the page itself better. Just my .02

Joeychgo 11:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's utter rubbish what you just said ^joeychgo - that "neither of you care much about the page" since I have made it very clear that I am more than willing to find a solution. Stop trying to badger me and stop lying, youknow fine well you banned my IP address. I have a screen shot. My IP address has not changed for a very long time and I was on your site the day before I accused you of spamming vbPortal. The following day I received a PM from your board and when I tried to login and change my profile my IP was banned. I still have the screenshot and it has been seen by the premium members at phpportals.com, where I posted a copy.

I think that being commercial is not a reason to be excluded from the external links ^Joeychgo - your homepage is just one big advert for affiliate links. ^demon - do I have to write an essay on the history of vbPortal ? Joeychgo made it quite clear in the vBulletin talk page that anything written to the vBulletin article is to be disputed. He disputes user Havoks latest addition to the page and seems to think he is an expert on such matters even though he is only another webmaster riding on the back of vBulletin like the rest of us. vbPortal has been running on the back of vBulletin since vBulletin version 1.0.x and was in the top five affiliate sales for 3 years. Many of phpportal's members have made it quite clear that they ony use vBulletin becuae they want to use vbPortal and if it was made for any other forums such as IPB then they would not hesitate to change their forum software. I can not only give reasons why vbPortal should be included for having deep roots in vBulletin's history, I can also give reasons why other sites shouldn;t be listed for all the same reasons why vbPortal shouldn;t be listed. I too am not so familiar with wiki as you and am unsure what I should ans shouldn;t bring to this discussion but I am not about to allow an importan part of the vBulletin history go unmentioned. The portal wars which I thought would also make a great addition to this article was turned down flat by joeychgo, simply because imho he can not accept that his site has more purpose in a vbulletin wiki page then vbportal accept that it could be considered as an interesting. vBulletin already has a site dedicated to vbulletin forum owners and its caled vbulletin.org so why is there such a need to have any links to sites for vbulletin forum owners when its clear that its only reason for having been listed in the external links was to attract vbulletin users to its page. How many times has this site been mentioned at vbulletin.com or vbulletin.org. Do members at vbulletin.com ask about this site like they do vbportal. Do vbulletin forum users reqularly post on vbulletin.com asking what is the best website for vbulletin forum webmasters ? No, they ask is there a portal. Is there a CMS. Which is the best vbportal or vbadvanced, but where do they ask for help about vbulletin ? on the vbulletin sites of course. SKin sites, well that's another matter, I am not debating to have skin sites added, those vbulletin forum owners can speak for themselves.

I can only apologise now for either talking too much, getting repetitive or speaking out of line, but once I got started I wasn't about to stop. This escapade has proved how venomous the vbulletin forum webmasters can be to each other and speaks volumes as to why the vbulletinl.org community which we all grew as vbulletin webmasters with, is in decline and what it has to do to get that community back. vbPortal takes nothing away from vbulletin but gives a whole lot back in return. We even give the payed member the commision that we would have received from jelsoft for any affiliate sales (as well as the other programs vbportal affiliate to). vBulletin do not have a cms or portal, news manager or anything, but they do have a vbulletin forum webmasters support site which is where vbportal started out along with all the other great addons and hacks for vbulletin. Some like vbportal just got too big for vbulletin.org and needed to be on a dedicated server. The program was free up until recent years and a license was added so as to protect the code from distribution. Its hardly an expensive addon. The cost license barely covers the cost of the server, vbulletin licenses and annual support. It could be argued that vbadvanced is what is called a loss leader - something which is given away in hope that members will buy the other products on sale. So although vbadvanced isn;t a commercial product it is a commercial site and also sells addons for vbulletin. -- End of rant, its been a long night. Scotsmist 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am with you - working from what were part of the WP:WEB guidelines. A suggestion is that in three months time if another site wishes to be included in the external links then they must first discuss this in the talk page. If a link is permanently included from the external links directing them to the talk page and the reason(s), then new links can be discussed first. If there is an explanation on the main page stating what to do, it is then there for everyone to see in future and IMHO would help to prevent future "vandalism". Scotsmist 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but this has always been the practice. Which some of the editors of the page has ignored, even after being told about it, then warned about it. I actually don't see any reason why we should keep the links that where there. Seeing as most - if not all - of them did nothing to add to the article. They are websites which deal with mods and themes, which all of them do. One of them dealt with running a forum as a webmaster but other then that, they are the same thing. When I added DMOZ to the list and removed the rest is was because getting on DMOZ "should" per-definition be easier then getting your site on WP. WP should strive for absolute quality or just keep to sites that deal with reviews, official site, or sites that add so much to the article at hand that the information is found nowhere else. Which I don't see any of these sites doing. Arguing that DMOZ is impossible to get listed on should not be WPs problem, also stating that you can't get your site on DMOZ might be a good indication that your site shouldn't be listed on WP to begin with. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Also, DMOZ removed the headache that is people adding links as all links that are not the two official ones and DMOZ can be removed from the section without prejudice, which in turn makes maintenance easier for the editors. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Scotsmist - its simple. vBportal offers nothing to someone interested in vBulletin except the chance to buy your product. Once again, you appear to only be interested in yourself and getting your site listed, and if you cant have that then you intend to argue with and berate the people who oppose its listing.

Havok as far as DMOZ - the problem is that adding the DMOZ link doesnt add anything of quality to the page. Dmoz is terrible these days. Good sites dont get added, dead sites dont get removed. (this coming from someone who has one of his sites listed there) and WIKI shouldnt rely upon DMOZ for quality because there is little quality at DMOZ - that was the point when we discussed DMOZ before. DMOZ just simply is terrible as far as quality - Although, I do understand your point that it removes abiguity.Joeychgo 08:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP should not rely on DMOZ no, not in normal circumstances at least. But then again, this is a special instance which we need to find a solution to. And as such, DMOZ is the better alternative because nobody in this discussion will relent on their website link. Basically what I think is this. Everyone who has a site dedicated to vB, or is such a part of the vB community that their judgment gets clouded; Should not edit the external links section. By all means, edit every and all other part of the article, but the external links section should be left alone. Why? Because non of you are unbiased toward which links to keep and remove. The DMOZ was a last solution to the article as at least that would make everyone equal. If you are having problems with DMOZ, then send them an email. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not try and turn that around or twist it. You Joeychgo where the one who argued first. I added my link and you argued first by removing it. You then accused me of spam first and you broke rules first by adding your own link. Its all there in the vBulletin talk page. You then banned my IP after sending me email from your site which I can't unsubscribe from. In addition, vbPortal offers someone the product free if they purchase vBulletin via the affiliate banner. Mute point, but right back at you Joey. Your home page looks like a glossy Ad. Scotsmist 10:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are offering a solution, at least offer one that currently works. A site is not "good" enough (reading between the lines) to be listed on a directory which has stated clearly is broken is also unbiased. You clearly have your reasons for insisting we all use something which has not worked for months now. DMoz is not the solution here, its broken, end of story. It would be more practical to create a wiki category "type" page. Scotsmist 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have DMOZ stated themselves that they are broken, or is this you talking? Then give me your solution to this. I have stated my solution to it, as there is no viable solution because non of you will ever agree. If you did, we wouldn't be in mediation right now. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of 'It would be more practical to create a wiki category "type" page' do you not understand or are you just oblivious to what anyone else says? If you only see your solution as viable and you know we will not agree to it then why even suggest it. Yes DMoz submissions where broken last week. It clearly stated that on their site, but I see its now working so yes, I would have to agree with you now that Dmoz is an option for all external links but its clearly not the ideal solution since its been suggested in the past, tried and failed. Unless the mediator makes a decision, this is just going to turn into another arguement Scotsmist 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

DMOZ Broken Thread --- http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=232584 - Its not quite up but they are getting there after a number of months. Past that - do some research on DMOZ - they have become known for being unreliable as a directoy, being rife with corruption, and alot more. Oh, and im unbiased because my site IS listed there -- Scotsmist, thei has already turned into another argument. Here is what I see so far in this mediation. The mediator offered a comprimise solution - I agreed with his idea but suggested different criteria. Havok doesnt seem to want any links period, except DMOZ, so no compromise there, and scotsmist thinks his site is worthy of listing and only talks about that and trying to discredit me as I oppose purely commercial sites. This mediation is going well. Know what - the argument just moved from one page to another. Joeychgo 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I would rather the section have links to directories, not sites themselves. Because by linking directly people will keep adding and 2 months down the road we'll be having the same argument, using the same reasons and we'll argue like now. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like my site will be listed becaue it doesn't meet the requirements right now. We get 10 new users a day, so maybe by next year we'll this the 5,000 users. I agree with Joey that alexa isn't a good way to mesure things, even tho my site is climbing on that as well, we're in the 24,000's now, I'd say in 6 months I'll hit the 10,000 mark. Just let me know if my site can be listed, its compleltly aimed at vBulletin help and optimization. If that isn't good enough to be listed on the wiki, I guess I'll give up on trying to get placed. Joey stated that I just want my link on the page and thats it, this couldn't be farther from the truth. I'd like my link up to help those looking for vBulletin help. I wouldn't care if this page had no traffic, and no PR, I'd still like to have my link up. - Brandon

I dont recall saying that brandon - But this mediation is not over whether or not your link or scotsmist's link should be placed - its about the policy we should have on the page to determine what links are allowed to be placed. And havok - ifd we come up with a policy here - and its been mediated - then we have something stronger to deal with in the future - and if someone places a link over and over again that is in violation of the policy we agree on and mediate here, then that vandalism. I understand what your saying havok, but throwing your hands up and saying 'I give up' is not the answer. SO - the mediated proposed a solution - lets work something out on that premise. Honestly, you asked for the mediation Havok, was it just so that you could be ruled 'correct'? I doubt it. Brandon - how many members isnt the best of measures either - unless its a lower number. Age of site might be something to look at - we need things that are somewhat concrete so that we can point to the rules. Work to improve the page guys - come on! Joeychgo 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

for the same reasons, I am saying any policy and external links that where determined last year should have a limited bearing on any policy set now. You can not set a policy in stone, then not expect it to be questioned along the way. There have been absolutley no valid reasons in my opinion why the external links on this page should be any different from external links on other pages. My only deviation from that statement is some form of category page where sites can be added, but it should still be a wiki page, not sending visitors interested in reading about vbulletin, to some other site which may not be around next year or simply be offline for any number of reasons and potentially start yet another arguement.

No joeychgo, I am not trying to discredit you because you oppose commercial sites (on a side note, maybe you should take that up with all the wiki pages listing commercial sites if you feel so strongly, or is it just this page that your interested in, not wiki as a whole) - my issue with you joey is that you have used the commercial arguement as a last and only resort after having tried every other possible reason to have the links restored to when your own was listed and before more where added. Each time you argued to have the page restored, so you could be included. Stating 5 is enough and no commerical sites or only one of each has to be utter tosh. It may look like I am discrediting you, but I have only used your own words and repeated them in another way, saying what you had already said or stating what action you have taken. Mentioning that you have banned my IP from your site after sending me an email which I could not unsubscribe from is hardly trying to discredit you, its only the plain truth, but if the name fits... You threw the spam accusation at me, you banned me from your site, you spammed vbportal, not me, you did a fine job of discrediting yourself, if only in my opinion. Wiki policy is being quoted but you failed to follow the basic guide of not adding your own link. From another position, all you are interested in joey, is the same thing as anyone adding an external link, which is for the vbulletin community to know about 'your' vbulletin community. Because your site attempts to receive money through banner ads, etc that you are not 'commercial'. Are not paying for everything out of your own pocket and providing your site because you want to donate all of your time and effort for free. You have a link at the top of your site that says Download vBulletin Here - lol, can one really download vbulletin from your site or is that just another affiliate link with cash in your pocket. At least vbportal give the commission from any vbulletin sale back to our members. WHat does your site offer which can not already be found on the vbulletin official sites. To then say that your site should be listed while another site shouldn't is a discredit to wiki. You are here, still replying because you don't want your site removed, while I am here because both havok and you deleted the link to phpportals, do you see our different circumsttances ? You say criteria, like how long a site has been up, how many members, is it a unique resource, etc, yet vbportal matches each of them. It has been up a lot longer than your site has. I do not know how many members, threads or posts you have because my IP is banned lol. vbPortal (really a CMS) was a free product but to protect the code from being copied, it was licenced, which means its not suitable to be mentioned in a wiki page ? so all links to vbulletin should be removed from any other pages since its a commercial product, where's the logic in your reason. All the style sites will jump on you said. Your reasons for preventing other vbulletin community support forums being listed is, only one of each. What will your arguement then be if a better vbulletin community support forum than yours comes along I wonder. Scotsmist 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Scotsmist - vBulletin has its own page. I fully suport you doing so. But - Linking directly to vBportal I disagree with. I oppose that for a few reasons. You only sell a product. Your site offers nothing of information for someone not looking into buying your product. Second, if vbportal is allowed, then shouldnt all skin sites be allowed? Now you open a floodgate of 100+ sites wanting to be linked. Its not so much about the money aspect as that you offer nothing else. You keep comparing your site to mine. Stop it. Your making things personal and they are not. You dont compete with me whatsoever so I have no reason to care on a personal level. I even offered to trade homepage links with you. (I didnt ban your IP intentionally - email it to me and Ill fix it - I dont know why your IP is banned) ------ Imagine if on the Ford page, every ford car accessory website was listed - see what I mean?

What I am interested in - is a policy that we can all work with. Thats all. Your selling your site and again, attacking mine -- your tenor is one of 'If Mine isnt listed, then yours shouldnt be' == Guess what -- this whole discussion is not about that. Its about a policy for the page. Not about getting your link listed. Notice I havent mentioned my site once in this discussion? This mediation is to come up with a POLICY. Talk about that or nothing. This mediation is not about your link, or mine, or brandons or anyone elses. Its about the policy so we dont have to keep fighting. But this is why we keep fighting. You seem like you only care about your link and not about the page. You offer no suggestions to help with determining a policy - just justifications about why your link should be here and attacking me and my site. Joeychgo 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with what ever is decided. I think these sites shoud be listed. vbulletin.com vbulletin.org vbulletin-faq.com vbhackers.com vbulletin-fans.com is a nice site too, oh and my site forum.vbulletinsetup.com I think it would be nice to have a link to a new page for "paid mods" and sites like vbportal, vbseo, vbmodder, thegeeks and other great sites with mods could be listed, and also have a new page for the styles sites.. I know when I started with vb, I couldn't find anything and it took a while until I seen how things where setup If all this info would have been on the wiki, it would have saved me countless hours. -Brandon

your saying that vbulletin-faq.com vbhackers.com vbulletin-fans.com and forum.vbulletinsetup.com be listed in the article and "paid mods" and style sites be on a new page because being a nice site is a suitable criteria and you think this should be included in the policy ? My suggestion still stands to only have the two jelsoft sites listed which are vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org and a link to a category type page. On that category type page (still on wikipedia.org of course) there could be various categories that sites can be added under. If the category page becomes to big then the sites could be categorised further and new pages created for each category and the links listed under each appropriate category page. Scotsmist 06:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Brandon. I found very little when I first started as well and would have appreciated sites such as you mentioned being listed. Scotsmist - why shouldnt other links be here and whats with all this catagory page stuff? Do you mean a links page? Not going to happen. Wiki is not a links repository. Joeychgo 10:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I may not be the most literate person but if I had meant a links page then I would have typed that. Why shouldn't other links be listed you ask, then answered your own question, wiki is not a links repository. By your reckoning any 'nice' sites regardless that they provide something which can already be found on the official jelsoft sites is suitable to be included in the article but that a new page where links (or categories if the page gets to big) can be added without harming the article is not going to happen ? All sites that ride on vbulletin are 'accessory' sites. What is the real difference between your site and the official jelsoft support sites ? You are in direct competition with jelsofts official support site. You are in opposition to several other vbulletin support sites, so if your site is listed, so should other support sites. You may think your site is the best but that is a matter of opinion. To give readers an accurate account of vbulletin, either all sites are included (somewhere, on some page) or no sites are included. It can't be both ways. You can't possibly insist that listing your site because there was no help when you started as a reason. It adds nothing to the actual article. How is adding a link to a site dealing with running a forum as a webmaster possibly be anymore important than say enhancing your site with a CMS. How is listing a commercial addon, for a commercial product worse than adding a link to a free addon. Its a commercial product, its a commercial site and its information that either should or shouldn't be included somewhere either in the article or on a page that the article links to, it doesn't have to be the external links if its an internal wiki page. By your reasoning, its okay to tell new vbulletin users who know nothing about your site and say brandon's site but its not okay to tell new users about any other sites where they can buy addons for vbulletin. Its a biased and inaccurate account of vbulletin, so if this page is going to be 'inaccurate and biased' then it should do so completely and without prejudice. No links except the jelsoft official sites vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org and all other sites either start their own wiki page or find another link repository. Scotsmist 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. the vbulletin-faq.com vbhackers.com vbulletin-fans.com and forum.vbulletinsetup.com links plainly violates the external links guideline. Non-official forums are not to be linked to. Scotsmist 16:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

alexa is not an accurate enough tool to use as a criteria. I never knowingly allow my browser to report my habits and therefore have no use for alexa rating. The majority of alexa users may need hand holding but I have my own browsing history, its my brain. People can make accurate conclusions when presented with processed information, computers need precise pieces of data to process and can only draw conclusions after the facts. Since Alexa is an incomplete way of measuring the web, it should not even be considered as criteria. Human judgement is whats required. If this page is always going to be troublesome and cause wiki editors concern then only the official jelsoft links should be included and everyone else either make your own page or go somewhere else. Its all to easy to cheat alexa and google ranking and it would be even easier to fake the number of members a site has. This should be a call that is made by a real person, not left for a machine. Scotsmist 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No Scott, I thought I stated pretty clearly what my suggestions where. I suggest that the sites i listed be on the main vb page and have 2 external links ( to anothe wiki page ) one for paid and supported mods, and one for styles and graphics sites. There would then be less then 10 links on the vb/wiki page including 2 that are pointing to a paid hacks and styles page. This would make everyone happy and would give the end-guest the best possible source of reference for vBulletin support and tips. As for listing vb.org and .com only, there is a problem because many great hacks are shared on other sites only and are never released at vb.org.. Those sites are ones that I listed ^^ including others I'm sure, I just don't visit them. Anyways, hope I cleared my stand up.. thanks - Brandon

My name isn't Scott, my username is scotsmist. Not all commercial scripts are hacks, some like vbPortal are addons and change nothing of vBulletin's code. Its splitting hairs now, but could be used as a debating point in future. It also implies that the sites you list are shalol we say more 'important' than those listed under the styles and 'hacks'. All """service providers""" should be listed on the same page.

That would still violate the external links guideline. Non-official forums are not to be linked to. Scotsmist 14:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then decide, which two sites get to stay, the list should not be comprised of more then 4 links maximum. Two of which are vBulletin.com and .org. The other two should be? Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets focus a bit folks... The External Links Guidelines Page says:

"What Should Be Linked"

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons
• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews

"Links to Normally Avoid"

• Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Also -- Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

Now, discussing a hard limit on the number of links, using Alexa, all that stuff, doesnt seem to have much basis in the guidelines.

So, I suggest that if a site, which does not primarily exist to sell products or services, wants to be listed by someone, I think we have to determine the following:

• Is the site Established - (Number of members, Age of site, activity level)
• Does the site contain sufficient unique content to be listed?
• Is the site primarily dedicated to vBulletin
• Is the site a good resource for someone trying to learn about vBulletin

Forget about the number of links. Stop worrying about that and start thinking about the quality of the links. That is a big part of where this is going wrong. I dont care if there is one or 100 links - as long as we provide a good list of quality resources. I agree that Human judgement is whats required. Lets use some. Joeychgo 12:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But, if you check the top it says "This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Meaning, there is no need for 1 billion links, or even 10, or even 6. I myself think 4-5 links is more then enough. One being the official site (in this case two), one for a directory, and one for another site. The only time something like this can be broken in my eyes is if it's a link to a review of a movie, software, game etc. or the site is so exceptional, that not linking it would stupid. None of the links mentioned above by Brandon come close to this. So yeah:

• vBulletin.com
• vBulletin.org
• DMOZ directory
• one of the sites mentioned.

If you all disagree, please read "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which you all break by owning/operating a vB site. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

and in addition violates the external links guideline. Non-official forums are not to be linked to. Since we are agreed that the number of links is not important then only the official vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org links should be listed. Others should submit their own wiki article if the site is considered such a valuable resource, that way there's no more arguing now or in future. Scotsmist 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So we agree on the links list I made above? Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite it seems. DMoz is not a suitable link. We have all given our reasons as well you know so why jump the gun and think that if you keep pushing dmoz we will accept it ?Scotsmist 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - its also not your decision to make Havok, this is the wiki mediation page remember, we are waiting on the mediator to make a decision what to do next Scotsmist 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

At no point did I say it was my decision. But if you read above, if you own a vB site like Brandon and Joey, then I don't think you should actually be talking about this, as all of you want to push your own agenda a little to much. Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

^joeychgo Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services doesn't exactly mean a site that sells a product (such as jelsoft) I think you'll find that aplies to sites that sell products such as an online bookstore. If a site was selling one book that the owner of the site wrote would it then be considered a commercial site, when it also offered support, discounts, a whole community of members all with one interest, the site owners book. Your site violates the external links guideline. Non-official forums are not to be linked to. Scotsmist 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) PS in addition, sites like yours and brandons would be considered under - 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET - of Links normally to be avoided [[1]] in addition under 13 - Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site. - would be applicable to all the sites that Brandon listed. Scotsmist 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If only 4 links can be posted then I think it should be. vb.org and .com, vbulletin-faq.com and vbulletinsetup.com. ( I say vbfaq and vbsetup because we are the ones trying to get listed, I think there are some other great vb site, but they haven't put time into this wiki, or appear to care if their site is listed, and if only 2 are added, I feel it should be these too ) ps. all the sites I listed now and above are directly releated to vBulletin and wouldn't run if vBulletin wasn't around, thus why I suggested them. ( this is in reply to Scott's post, for some reason he keeps trying to misquote me ) I don't know how I can make things any more clear... thanks -Brandon

Seriously Brandon, what part of the rules don't you get? You can't "list" your own site... Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify something I will not agree, under any circumastances, to only have the official sites listed. I have not and do not agree to what you have suggested Havok, so there is no need to ask that question again. I also wont agree to a hard limit of 4 links.

That said - I said it before - TALK ABOUT A POLICY - Not individual sites. For every guideline you show me that says vbfaq shouldnt be listed, I have another that says it can. So there is no point for you to pursue youre ongoing personal attack against me. And for the record, vBfaq contains alot of content - articles, how to's, tutorials, free skins, free hacks, as well as a forum discussion. SO stop comparing vBfaq to Myspace or some silliness like that.

Rant over. How many links is NOT an issue. 20 links is fine IF they are high quality links -- THAT is the question we should be discussing. What level of quality do we want? How do we measure that quality. People - stop saying this link can or cant be there. Stop attacking someone's link or supporting one. TALK ABOUT THE POLICY -- Geeze - Joeychgo 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

section 10: states the words "MySpace" as part of an example however it also states "discussion forums" which is very comparable to your site it is not silly. Your site is a discussion forum and is why I quoted section 10 not because i think your site is a social networking site lol now that's silly. Scotsmist 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(Section break)

Making a section break, as this area is getting rather long. Just wanted to say that I'm very pleased with the civil discourse that has been going on, and I think we'll arrive at a compromise sooner rather than later. I've been looking around, and what I found listed at the Invision Power Board article is rather interesting. In looking at their external links section, I am noticing a distinction that we lack at vBulletin, and that is a distinction from Official and Unofficial sites. In addition, I think that everyone should take a quick look at the talk page for IPB, specifically these two sections. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is - we had a consensus once. Then Brandon came along and wouldnt take no for an answer. Then scotsmist came along and wouldnt take no for an answer. Havok is understandably frustrated with the whole situation. There is no discussion going on here, nobody seems to be budging or working toward a compromise. This whole page is nothing more then the fight that was ensuing on the main discussion page. Joeychgo 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ahh, so its like that is it. Look back over the talk page - You started the disruption long ago, Brandon and I may have joined in but neither of us make any pretence about being wki experts. I also posted in the Talk page and stopped trying to add a link after two attempts. I did not vandalise the page or keep trying to add my link back. On the contrary you deleted the links how many times now and kept putting your link back ? Scotsmist 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the 2 sections you linked and then reading to the very end it looks like vbportal called be listed under "See Also" whereas brandon's, joeychgo's and any other vbulletin 'fan' sites which are purely forums should not be listed. likewise Non-official forums are not to be linked to and you can't "list" your own site (vbPortal is not my site, its wajones site he owns it not me, I just write code). Scotsmist 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the way the IPB article does this, official links, and two unofficial. More then enough. The reason I advocate DMOZ, or any other internet directory is that you can all list your sites there, and not in the article directly. The rules and policies are very clear on this. And as it has been stated before, if you own the site in question, then you can't vote for its inclusion, it's a conflict of interest. Or if your site is commercial, it can not be included. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine - We dont want to link to forums? Lets delete the WHOLE PAGE. vBulletin.com and vBulletin.org are both primarily FORUMS -- Especially vBulletin.org. However, vBulletin FAQ is not only a forum. We have many articles that are not on the forum. Just look from the homepage..... Anything else you want to attack with scotsmist? Joeychgo 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Very constructive by both of you.. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive been begging for constructive discussion - even you havent been very constructive. You just want it the way you want it. Im pretty fed up. There is no mediation or negotiation going on here. Joeychgo 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A New Suggestion

What about this?

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org)
• If not one, must meet the following criteria:
  • Must have existed for a minimum of two years
  • Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product
  • Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users (I'd say 3/4 free would be a good enough threshold)

Ideas? Revisions? I'd also like to remind everyone that WP:EL is not set in stone. Of course it is a guideline, and should be followed as best possible, but if we find that it's not working in our case, it's perfectly fine to ignore it (which is policy). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say go one year - and make the specification that it be an 'active site'. Also make the specification that it be dedicated to vBulletin (just to be clear on that point). Otherwise, Im happy with it. I suspect this will be less of a problem now that Wiki has added nofollow tags to all links. Joeychgo 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know very well that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. But, I'm a big advocate for having a bare minimum of external links in an article, and vBulletin is no exception to that. But yes, your suggestion is fine with me, as long as it's kept to the two official links and max 2-3 unofficial ones that are highly notable. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

what was the reason why it needs to be a site that supports vB users but not sites that sell a product to vB users? I must have missed that bit. If we can bend rules about listing forums we can bend rules about listing products that are dedicated to vB and are not available elsewhere. There are no official CMS for vB. If someone was wanting to know more about vB, then they would visitvB.com as per the External Links section and then be told to go to vb.org when they need unofficial support by the staff at vb.com, they would not be told to visit one of the many support/community sites to support vB users. When they are asked if there is a CMS for vB they are directed to ask at vb.org which in turn links to vbadvanced, mkportal or vbportal as the recommended choices to vb users. If wiki is about information then that is pertinent to vBulletin however a list of 2 sites that support vB users is saying that these sites are 1) special, 2) become translated as unofficial but 'endorsed' in some way, 3) would be open to debate since 2 sites would not be enough to satisfy anyone except the tw sites which are listed then it would result in a repetition of the past events when someone adds another link that they think should be there. Your suggestion only highlights the fact that you can not include vbulletin fan sites and exclude sites that sell a product. You can not only have 2 links to a subject as diverse as vB and you can not then dictate to any wiki reader which links are the ones that they should read if they want to know more about vB when you know what the wiki visitor reads will in some way be interpreted beyond what is intended. They will see lots of external links on other wiki pages and some may come to the same conclusions that there must just be a reason for that and that's before anyone tries to add a link they think should be listed since the section looks so emty with just two official links and at most 2 or 3 fan sites, they would want to know where the addons are where the paid products are where the styles are where other users discuss the product and so on. The article is about vBulletin and the external links should be about the product only because it has such a large following. The links should be limited to the 2 official vbulletin sites. All other information can be found on those two sites. Scotsmist 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PS from an editor's viewpoint I would think that more time is spent in the talk page and this page than the vB article itself over the past few months at least and seems to happen a lot with this article. More time could be spent on other articles by the same editors if the external links section was closed for good with an explanation and a link to Dmoz which is also inline with many other wiki pages as ^Havok points out. I am sure that the other talk page participants such as IPB and php-nuke are also watching this mediation closely since they also appear to have the same issues raised time and again on the vB talk page. If it is consuming my time I can only sympathise with the editors here. I have no reason to insist one link be included over another anymore than either of you except that we all agree that we can not agree on what the external links should be. Do what you must, I am done with this mediation and have to spend time on other things. I wish you all good luck and will pop by to see if you are all getting along without me to stand in your way anymore. It has been unusual talking with you all, so long and thanks for all the fish. Scotsmist 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck scotsmist. Since you never contacted me about that IP thing - it must not have been very important.

One last thing. I have nothing against your site. My opposition to it is simply that it offers nothing to the reader except a chance to buy your product. Past that, your site doesnt contain anything helpful to anyone except someone who owns your product, and those people already know of your site. Listing your site would open the floodgates. Why should your paid mod site be listed and not vBseo, vbstyles, vbxtra, vbskins, etc etc etc etc etc. Its nothing personal. As I have said, I would gladly trade links with you on vBfaq. I just dont think listing your site is beneficial to the reader of this wiki page. Joeychgo 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandman's Opinion

I can certainly see why the External Links are currently limited to the official vBulletin sites, and I believe that this is how it should probably remain.

The long and often unpleasant discussion regarding this issue has not resulted in a lasting solution because it mainly consists of site owners with a clear conflict of interest who want their links added to the article despite the fact that they do not belong by any reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. These sites are specifically dealt with in the WP:EL

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

It is crystal clear that the intent of this guideline is to exclude sites which are non-official alternatives to the official sites. That is exactly the case here. Of course, the argument is that the WP:EL are guidelines, not policies, and can be ignored. However, one must look at the intent of the guideline to determine why it was promulgated in the first place and whether there is any benefit to ignoring it. I believe that the reason for the guideline is to exclude derivative sites which do not have a two-way relationship with the official site, because such sites are not authoritative, offer no benefit to the official site, and contain far, far less information than the official site. These sites do not represent significant resources and are therefore not appropriate external links.

Factors such as who listed their link first, who added or removed what link how many times, and what "agreements" were previously made between these people should be discounted out of hand. What matters is maintaining the integrity of the process.

If there is one site that would be appropriate for inclusion (besides the official sites) it would be the Admin Zone. The Admin Zone has a two-way relationship with vBulletin, staff members recognized as experts in various aspects of vBulletin by the vBulletin Community, and offers far more vBulletin related content than any other non-official site. Due to it's diversity, the Admin Zone offers benefits to vBulletin users beyond those offered at the official sites.

However, if a majority of unbiased editors feel that the Admin Zone is not an appropriate link because of it's coverage of all forum software, I can understand it. What I cannot understand is exclusion of the Admin Zone while allowing links to one or more sites which do not represent significant resources. To allow one or two adds nothing of importance to the article, and only guarantees further argument and frustration in the future as other vBulletin "fan" site owners come along and want their own links added. The Wikipedia articles dealing with other forum software products list only official sites or unofficial/semiofficial sites of obvious significance (as determined by unbiased editors after orderly discussion on the article's "Talk Page"). The vBulletin article should be no different. --TAZ Sandman 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically, your unbiased opinion is that only TheAdminZone, which you own, should be listed. You say this after talking about site owners with a clear conflict of interest. Your logic has always been a enigma to me Sandman as has your arrogance. Thank you for your advertisement to list TheAdminZone, which is basically all you just did. I believe a number of people already explained on the vB talk page that TAZ isnt dedicated to vBulletin, and as such isnt appropriate for listing. Its also not the only significant resource out there. Strangely, nobody has mentioned TAZ before. But hey, thats one way for you to try to squash the competition. Joeychgo 08:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Joey took the words right out of my mouth. You just added nothing to the mediation going on but to advertise your own website. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By being dedicated to vBulletin, such unofficial sites are pretty much excluded by definition if you place any weight at all on the existing Wikipedia guidelines. The only way you can justify their inclusion is by overlooking their insigificance (or lack of notability if you will). If the purpose of this discussion is to wink our eye and chose one or two of these sites it's a lose-lose situation for the Wikipedia. At least the Admin Zone is notable and significant. Of course my opinion is biased - if you removed the posts of the biased site owners from the discussion there would be no discussion. What I said was, I thought the Admin Zone should be included because of it's significant content for vBulletin users by accepted vBulletin experts beyond what is offered by the official sites. I also said I could understand it's exclusion, and that I thought the only reasonable solution was to list only official sites. And I said specifically that the decision should be made by unbiased editors. I certainly cannot understand adding links to sites of little or no significance which add nothing to the article except to satisfy the site owners desire to be listed. Not only would this subvert the Wikipedia process - it would virtually guarantee ongoing issues between the sites listed and those that want to be listed. The ones clamoring for inclusion are by no means the only ones of their kind. The vBulletin article should be treated the same as the other forum software articles, which do not allow such links.--TAZ Sandman 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank for your ruining a couple of weeks worth of debate by coming in and trying to get your site linked. It has helped us so much. As things are going now I think we should do as the mediator says, remove all links except for the two official ones, because frankly this is going absolutely nowhere. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A Break?

I'm not seeing any major progress in this mediation? What if we set the links section to have official vB links only, and come back to this debate in a month? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Please let me know if/when the mediation continues. --TAZ Sandman 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I saw some progress. The only ones who didnt seem onboard were scotsmist and TAZ, both of who have sites they want listed that pretty clearly shouldnt be listed regardless of this mediation.

What about this?

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org)
• If not an official vBulletin site , must meet the following criteria:
  • Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be an active/consistantly updated site
  • Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product
  • Must be dedicated to vBulletin
  • Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users (I'd say 3/4 free would be a good enough threshold)
• A guideline limit of 4 non-official sites. This isnt a hard limit, but if we go past 4, they should be very good sites.

Demon, Havok, Brandon, Can we all live with this? Sandman, Scotsmist, I have no question you two will disagree since your sites are automatically excluded by the above. Joeychgo 13:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with this. Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

fine with me - Brandon

---

The "disagreements" regarding this issue have been going on for well over a year, long before scotsmist and I came on the scene. It has been characterized by countless edit wars as well as outright vandalism necessitating multiple lockdowns. If you go back over the discussion on the Talk:vBulletin page from the beginning, most of the unbiased editors who have taken the time to comment on this issue have been of the opinion that the External Links should be limited to the two official vBulletin sites, vBulletin.com and vBulletin.org, and DMOZ. These sites are clearly appropriate by WP:EL guidelines and are more than sufficient to flesh out the article with all of the additional information anyone could want about vBulletin.

The history of this article clearly shows that allowing these non-official vBulletin "fan" sites to be added as External Links invariably leads to spamming, edit wars, and discussions that are less than civil. If a site owner believes that their site should be added to the External Links, the correct procedure would be to request inclusion on the article's talk page and get a prevailing opionion from a majority of unbiased editors (i.e. those editors which do not have sites they wish included). Such a request should include specific justification for being listed such as significant participation by official vBulletin personnel or recognized vBulletin experts. Simply being "dedicated to vBulletin" doesn't make it. Neither do statements like "lots of vBulletin admins go there".

To allow site owners, who have a clear conflict of interest, to concoct a set of inclusion criteria that allows them to be listed while excluding others is unacceptable. The unrelenting attempts to get one's own site listed should not be rewarded by allowing them to circumvent the conflict of interest rules, which are of crucial importance to the integrity of the Wikipedia process. Where are the unbiased editors? --TAZ Sandman 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the history recap Sandman. But here again, what are you suggesting as a matter of policy? What you have just said has been said by everyone who couldnt get their site listed. My interest here is first in trying to get a good policy we can work with. Anything past that is a waste of time on this page IMO. But go ahead and keep trying to lay the groundwork to get your site listed. Thats really all I get out of your posting Joeychgo 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank for your ruining a couple of weeks worth of debate by coming in and trying to get your site linked. It has helped us so much. As things are going now I think we should do as the mediator says, remove all links except for the two official ones, because frankly this is going absolutely nowhere. --Havoc

Unlike the other participants of this discussion who have engaged in endless edit wars and vandalism, I made an appropriate request for inclusion on the article's talk page and gave reasons justifying it. I never added a link to the article, and I have abided by the decision excluding it even though the decision was primarily made by biased editors. Most of the unbiased editors commenting on the article's talk page going back over a year were in favor of limiting the External Links to the two official vBulletin sites plus DMOZ, but the site owners who want their links included are unwilling to accept this and have conducted an unrelenting campaign for conclusion far beyond what should be allowed. I'm not sure why you consider the opionions I've given here to be the problem, and I suggest that you reread the entire Talk:VBulletin discussion, including your own comments. TAZ Sandman

Because, you have been told by pretty much everyone that TAZ isnt appropriate for a link here, but you keep on. Joeychgo 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

see argumentum ad populum. just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.

Point 1. Do NOT add your own site. 2. Don't POV push your own site to get it linked. 3. If you are not here to add anything constructive so that a solution can be presented, but only try and get your site linked. Please do not discuss it on these pages any further. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

you say not to discuss TAZ here. you say not to discuss TAZ in Talk:VBulletin until this Request for mediation has concluded. after this Request for mediation, what are you going to do - say, on Talk:VBulletin, that TAZ cant be allowed because of the consensus that was reached here? the consensus that you are now asking TAZ Sandman not to contrebute to? the consensus that you've asked TAZ Sandman to wait for?

you dont mediate by telling people with dissenting opinions to go away. you mediate by compromising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 January 2007

Last I checked I've been ok with some of the "compromises" that the mediator has come with and Joey for that matter. And yet, no compromise can be reached. Why? Because everyone is so saturated with their own agenda taking priority from reaching any sort of consensus in this mediation. Again, why? Because you are all pushing to get your website listed. I can't be bothered listening to anyone who has a hidden agenda, and that is to get their site listed, when WP:EL clearly is against any such action. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

its not a compromise when like minded people agree.

I was given permission by the mediator to participate in this discussion and unless he tells me to stop I will continue as I see fit. As far as the Admin Zone goes, I can only repeat that I made an appropriate request for inclusion on the talk page. This procedure may be foreign to you since nobody else seems to follow it but it is in fact the proper Wiki way for a site owner to seek such a link. The request included what I considered to be reasonable justification for inclusion. You act as if it was some kind of bad faith request, but TAZ really does have far more vBulletin related content than any other non-official site, participation by vBulletin personnel, and staff members considered vBulletin experts. So even though the link request has not been approved, I don't see how the request itself should be a cause for concern. I do not plan to make any further requests - perhaps at some future date some unbiased editors will come along and conclude that TAZ should be included, but regardless, I made my request and that's that. You mentioned the proposed compromise by the mediator:

• Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
• A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
• Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

I don't have a problem with this at all. Basically, these guidelines speak to notability, or significance. I don't believe any of the "dedicated to vBulletin" sites seeking inclusion can come close to fulfilling even one of these criteria. As an aside, TAZ is 2 for 3, or perhaps 3 for 3 depending on how you define media attention. You will need to add something like the very carefully worded condition suggested by one of the participants in this discussion if you want to exclude TAZ by rule:

• Be Dedicated to vBulletin Forum Owners (instead of all forum software or something like that)

I suggest that the guideline's proposed by the mediator should stand as is, or if you wish add the rule which is specifically written to exclude TAZ - I can live with that if the rest of the rules stand intact. Yes, these are some high standards, but that is necessary to ensure that the added links are significant resources. Alternatively, I can also live with a rule allowing the official vBulletin sites and DMOZ only.

Allowing site owner's to concoct their own rules that do away with notability and significance is unacceptable. That's just an attempt to legitimize what they have been doing all along - trying relentlessly to get their links added in the face of disapproval by the majority of unbiased editors.

Regardless of which rules are adoped, it should still be required that biased editors such as site owners who want their sites listed make a request on the Talk Page and get approval from some unbiased editors rather than adding the links themselves. Over a year ago an unbiased editor described the vBulletin article as "one of WP's most spammed pages". Isn't it time to ensure this doesn't happen again? TAZ Sandman 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You got a no on adding TAZ, and yet you continue this masquerade. Your agenda is clear as crystal, you only want TAZ added to get more visitors and members. If someone wants to add TAZ that is unbiased towards it, sure by all means go trough the proper channels. But all you seem to spew here is propaganda to add your site, which is the reason I do not want your site to be one of the ones that are added to the article. Plain and simple. Havok (T/C/e/c) 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

But all you seem to spew here is propaganda to add your site, which is the reason I do not want your site to be one of the ones that are added to the article. Plain and simple. - Havoc

And here I thought you were the one unbiased participant in this discussion. Now I see there aren't any. Did you actually read what I wrote?TAZ Sandman 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

At the top just below the break, the mediator has a suggestion. I was fine with it, Brandon was fine with it. You have yet to answer it, are you fine with it? And Joey, are you fine with it? All it needs is consensus and we are done. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew you didn't read my post Havoc. Go back up a few inches and read what I wrote:

I suggest that the guideline's proposed by the mediator should stand as is, or if you wish add the rule which is specifically written to exclude TAZ - I can live with that if the rest of the rules stand intact. Yes, these are some high standards, but that is necessary to ensure that the added links are significant resources. Alternatively, I can also live with a rule allowing the official vBulletin sites and DMOZ only. - TAZ Sandman

These are the mediator's proposed rules:

• Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
• A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
• Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better

.And here's the one added:

• Be Dedicated to vBulletin Forum Owners (instead of all forum software or something like that)

I endorsed the mediator's suggestions and mentioned even adding one more rule even though it would expressly exclude my site. I am opposed to any watered down rules written by a site owner seeking inclusion which do away with any requirement for notability or significance.TAZ Sandman 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice sandman. When you seem to care more about the quality of the wiki page and how to best manage it then your site being listed, then I'll take you more seriously - for now, I see your comments as "watered down".

In the meantime, what I suggested:

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org) If not an official vBulletin site , must meet the following criteria:
  • Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be an active/consistantly updated site
  • Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product
  • Must be dedicated to vBulletin
  • Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users (I'd say 3/4 free would be a good enough threshold)
• A guideline limit of 4 non-official sites. This isnt a hard limit, but if we go past 4, they should be very good sites.

The other part about being a verifiable impact beyond its own user community I dont know how we determine that, and it seems thats a condition that will spur nothing about debate for every site. As far as a minimum number of members, what about sites that are only article based and have no forum? As far as Alexa ranking, I oppose any measure that looks somewhere beyond the site such as pagerank or alexa ranking. These are not meaningful measures of a site's value to this page and can be manipulated. A valuable vBulletin resource doesnt need to have good SEO, which is partly what it takes to get things like Alexa Rankings.

So - is there a problem implementing the policy I proposed above? Joeychgo 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

A site that has had a significant impact beyond it's own user community should have no problem demonstrating it. The proper procedure would be for the site owner to give examples of how they have done so and allow some unbiased editors to make the decision. If you can't think of any examples of your site's impact beyond it's own user community it's because it hasn't made any. The bottom line is, a site should deserve to be listed here because of it's significance, not simply because it's been around for over a year and is "dedicated to vBulletin webmasters". The reason the article has been locked down multiple times, the edit wars and vandalism, are the direct result of allowing the inclusion of sites by their owners without requiring that they by judged significant resources by unbiased editors. The two sites clamoring hardest for inclusion specialize in search engine optimization and site monetization, but that's probably just a coincidence.

I suggest:

To be eligible for an external link:

• The site should be dedicated to vBulletin forum owners
• Any editor seeking a link for a site they have a relationship with (owner, staff member, or frequent contributer) MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion from unbiased editors.

In addition, a site must be able to demonstrate it's significance as a resource by fulfilling at least one of the following conditions:

• Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
• A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
• Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better

I believe this is a reasonable compromise in that it protects the integrity of the vBulletin article and the Wikipedia process while allowing important sites to be added as external links. I'm giving up any possibility of TAZ being listed under these rules - at least the "dedicated to vBulletin" sites have the opportunity to get listed when and if they become notable resources. TAZ Sandman 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the last criteria, Alexa is flawed and should not be followed. Other then that I think we are finally getting somewhere. Sorry for being so short sighted, but I've been discussing this for the last year. :P Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very close. I don't have a problem with the removal of the Alexa requirement, but there should be something to replace it - a measure of activity. How about, instead of 5,000 members we make it 2,000 active members (members visiting within the last month). For reference, vBulletin.com has about 9,000 active members and vBulletin.org has almost 14,000 active members.

So:

To be eligible for an external link:

• A site must be dedicated to vBulletin forum owners with more than 2,000 active members (members active in the past month) that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.
• Any editor seeking a link for a site they have a relationship with (owner, staff member, or frequent contributer) MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion from unbiased editors.

I think that's it. TAZ Sandman 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Making a break below with that info. Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing. That should be "Any editor seeking to link a site should meet the above requirements as well as post their request for inclusion on on the talk page." We don't want everyone to add their site regardless. I think a limit of 4 links except for the official ones should be enforced somehow. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made it quite clear but I shall spell it out for you joey and brandon - I a g r e e t h a t o n l y t h e o f f i c i al l i n k s a n d D m o z - OK? Scotsmist 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress!

OK - here's what Havok and I have agreed on based on ^demon's suggestions:

To be eligible for an external link:

• A site must be dedicated to vBulletin forum owners with more than 2,000 active members (members active in the past month) that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.
• Any editor seeking a link for a site they have a relationship with (owner, staff member, or frequent contributer) MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion from unbiased editors.

There were two other important things the mediator suggested that are not yet included:

• • Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vBulletin users, rather than to sell a product.
  • Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content.

So, incorporating these and making the changes Havok recommends, here is the current proposal:

• Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors.*

• To be eligible for linking, a site must:
  

- consist primarily of free content.
- exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product.
- have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month).
- show evidence that it has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.

TAZ Sandman 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have stayed quiet in this mediation so far, but have been following it with interest. I was under the impression that only the parties involved in the mediation were to take part, but this does not appear to be the case, and it appears that some sort of policy compromise on this page is being hashed out, rather than resolving the differences between the parties. therefore, before an agreement is reached, I would like to commend everyone on working towards a solution and to make two small observations - the concept of active members only applies to a forum - so is this discussion simply about adding an EL to a forum in this article? And somehow the text about the site being ABOUT vBulletin seems to be getting watered-down. It started with "Must be dedicated to vBulletin", then went to "Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product". I would like to make sure we keep this focus in the text, since that is the gist of the WP:EL requirements.

Could I propose this?

• Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.*

• To be eligible for linking, a site must:
  

- be an official vBulletin site.
'OR'
- Be dedicated to vBulletin.
- consist primarily of free content.
- exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vBulletin users, rather than to sell a product.
- have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month).
- show evidence that it has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.

This still doesn't cover sites that are not forums but may still be linkable as ELs. I think we need to think about that too. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points Alucard.

As far as the wording goes, I don't have a preference either way. In fact, I don't see a significant difference between "dedicated to vBulletin" and "exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vBulletin users". What do you see as the distinction between them?

You do bring up a point that's been skirted but not really addressed - that the WP:EL seems to argue against the inclusion of forum based sites. Honestly, I do not think that this should apply to the forum software articles. It seems reasonable that sites dedicated to a particular forum software would be based on that forum software, so of course the vBulletin related sites are primarily forum based. And one of the most important indicators of a forum's significance is it's activity.

Most of the rules you listed in your version are applicable to both forum based and non forum based sites, although you might want to change:

have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month).

to:

if a forum based community, must have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month).

Most if not all vBulletin related sites will be forum based, and for those which are not, the other criteria should be sufficient to ensure notability. TAZ Sandman 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, another point would be to include "Websites which require registration are not to be added.". Should the section be split though? We could add something like this in the section:

Official sites

• The official vBulletin website
• The official vBulletin mod website

Unofficial sites

• vBulletin] at the Open Directory Project
• vBulletin FAQ
• vB Hackers

Interviews & articles

• Interview with Andreas
• Interview with Kier
• Interview with Steve Machol

This could be a compromise for everyone. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of forums require registration for full participation (e.g. posting, viewing member profiles, etc.). I think that's fine as long as unregistered guests can view the majority of the site's content, and registration is free for those who desire it.

With this in mind, we have:

• Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.*

• To be eligible for linking, a site must:
  

- be an official vBulletin site or DMOZ.
'OR'
- Be dedicated to vBulletin.
- consist primarily of free content.
- exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vBulletin users, rather than to sell a product.
- have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month).
- show evidence that it has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.
- if a forum based community, have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month), free registration, and a majority of it's content visible to unregistered vistitors.'

TAZ Sandman 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a point "have been active for at least a year." Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First - Sandman - I have to say thank you. You finally started to become in depth with the quality of the page. Thats what I was looking for. Everyone came in talking about their own site, which wasnt the purpose here.

A few points --

• - have at least 2,000 active members (members active in the past month).

This is VERY hard to achieve, even vB hackers only has 1400 right now, and isnt always visible. Further, there is a hack to manipulate the statistics - so I would just drop it down to 2000 members period. Forget the active part.

• - show evidence that it has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.

Im still not sure how this would be shown. Give me some examples so I can understand your thinking.

• - be an official vBulletin site or DMOZ.

Forget DMOZ -- DMOZ sucks. They rarely update the vBulletin section. There was a site listed there for a year that wasnt running.

• The interviews - Im not opposed to them - even using TAZ's -- But...

This question may very well come up - who's interview do we choose? TAZ isnt the only site with interviews. If talkvbulletin does an interview, and wants it listed - then what?

As far as how many unofficial links - 4 is enough I suspect - Joeychgo 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Joey, DMOZ may suck in your opinion, but it's WP:EL policy to find it an acceptable alternative, if the category contains useful information. If you want to criticize the particular category, then that's fine, but if you want to make general statements about the use of ODP links in WP, you need to do that somewhere else, like the WP:EL page. As I am an ODP editor, I went through the category a while back and removed the site to try to make the category a little more usable. I don't usually edit in that area, but am always interested in sites that are listed that should be taken out. I am not going to campaign one way or the other, since I am obviously not impartial. I will leave it up to others to decide if, while not all-encompassing, there are enough useful links in that category to make an EL to it useful, and whether it is a good way to direct sites that are NOT EL candidates to get listed somewhere else. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Regardless of one's personal opinion of DMOZ, the WP:EL endorses it's use and in fact the sites demanding inclusion as External Links are listed there. I was under the impression that the basis of the objection to using the DMOZ was that vBulletin-FAQ, vBulletinSetup, and vBhackers weren't listed there... but they are. So to be honest, I don't see the problem. A direct link to the DMOZ vBulletin section should definitely be included and any sites listed there should not be listed separately, which would amount to listing the links twice. In this case, the WP:EL's recommendation to use DMOZ works perfectly well to lead the Wiki user to numerous "dedicated to vBulletin" sites without the need to clutter up the article with each link.

In my opinion, some assessment of the activity is very important in determining a forum based site's significance and should be included. If Alexa is not acceptable, then the number of active members should be included. If 2,000 is too high a standard than we can consider lowering to 1,500 or 1,200 but we shouldn't remove it altogether. True, activity stats can be manipulated but they can also be verified by examining the member list after sorting it by "last visit".

Here are my updated recommendations:

• Automatic Links
  

- The official vBulletin website
- The official vBulletin mod website
- vBulletin related sites on DMOZ

• Procedure for adding links for non-official sites which are not listed in the vBulletin section of DMOZ:
  

- Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.
- In order to be eligible for inclusion, the following conditions apply:
--- dedicated to vBulletin.
--- active for at least one year
--- consist primarily of free content.
--- free registration, and a majority of it's content visible to unregistered vistitors.
--- exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vBulletin users, rather than to sell a product.
--- show evidence that it has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.
--- if a forum based community, have at least 1,500 active members (members active in the past month).'

TAZ Sandman 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment. You cant quantify how busy a site is accurately. The active members part is not going to work. It also puts forums to a higher standard then non forums, who dont have to meet this requirement. I still dont think DMOZ is appropriate for this article because the vBulletin catagory has never been properly managed. Sorry alucard, but its true. Still nobody has expolained how we ascertain "verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention." -- How does a vBulletin help site get this? I think that is a subjective directive and hard to quantify, but easy to argue over. Come on guys - be more reasonable here. Joeychgo 11:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Free, good measure?

Jumping in here with a quick remark, I don't know whether the must be primarily free is a good measure, as a wiki reader I would rather see a site in the external links that offers added value (something unique) to the vbulletin article rather than the umpteenth support for vbulletin forum. Francinne 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Job, and A Note

I just want to say good job on the very positive discussion going on so far. Sorry for not interjecting more, but I've seen no reason to, as I've seen very good progress. However, I must note that my contribution will become decidedly less, as my laptop was stolen the other day in Baltimore. I'm currently updating from work, and I can ocassionally check in, but other than that, my level of activity will be slightly less until further notice. Sorry, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your laptop ^demon. :(

Regarding the DMOZ inclusion - I see nothing wrong with the DMOZ page for vBulletin related sites, except for the inclusion of vBulletin Webmaster, which has been merged with vBulletin-FAQ. The vBulletin Webmaster link redirects to vBulletin-FAQ, so there is no reason to list both. Alucard - can you remove the vBulletin Webmaster link from that page? I am strongly in favor of keeping the link to the DMOZ vBulletin page because it is in line with the WP:EL recommendations, has links to numerous "dedicated to vBulletin" sites, all of which are active except for vBulletin Webmaster as previously mentioned. and all 3 of the sites mentioned in during the course of this mediation for inclusion as links (vBulletin-FAQ, vBHacker, and vBulletinSetup) are already listed there. As far as I am concerned, this is a no-brainer - the DMOZ link should be used and any site listed on it should not be eligible for a second link within the vBulletin article.

Other comments on the current proposal?

• Automatic Links
  

- The official vBulletin website
- The official vBulletin mod website
- vBulletin related sites on DMOZ

• Procedure for adding links for non-official sites which are not listed in the vBulletin section of DMOZ:
  

- Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.
- In order to be eligible for inclusion, the following conditions apply:
--- dedicated to vBulletin.
--- active for at least one year
--- consist primarily of free content.
--- free registration, and a majority of it's content visible to unregistered vistitors.
--- exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vBulletin users, rather than to sell a product.
--- show evidence that it has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.
--- if a forum based community, have at least 1,500 active members (members active in the past month).'

TAZ Sandman 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to hear that ^demon. Should all of those points apply, or maybe 5 og 7 or something? Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your laptop Demon - that really is terrible.

Thanks for getting the DMOZ page updated Alucard ---- I still oppose the DMOZ link - it serves little purpose here. Further, who is linked here and there are seperate issues and one shouldnt affect the other. Im starting to feel made a fool of Sandman, because im starting to see what looks like you manipulating to get your interview links up and vbfaq off this page. Im starting to think thats your motive here Joeychgo 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I think I was the one who suggested having a section for interviews and reviews. Which wouldn't have to be to TAZ at all. It was rather a way to show how we could do it. In regards to DMOZ, I very much disagree with you Joey, and I have disagreed with you on this point ever since I brought the link up. It not working and what not is beside the point, as it is a valid link which is even endorsed by WP:EL. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the WP:EL document (Section: Important Points to remember) it states in section 2:

Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics.

So the guideline very much addresses the use of DMOZ as an alternative to having a long list of links, here. So Joey - how strongly do you feel about this? Can you live with the DMOZ link being there or is it a show-stopper for you? (In other words, will it stop you reaching an agreement on this issue if it remains.)

As a suggestion for trying to wrap this up a bit, once a consensus appears to have been reached on the rules for an EL on this page, we can test those rules by making sure that everyone is in agreement of what the EL section of the article should look like, based on those rules. There's no point saying that a consensus on a set of rules was reached if the warring starts up again once they get implemented, bas3ed on different people's different interpretations of them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A show stopper - not exactly. I just dont see a need for the link, especially since there isnt alot of sites listed there. We're not adding anything to the page in this case by linking to the DMOZ page. As I said, I also take issue with saying that if your linked in DMOZ then you cant be linked here. That appears to be little more then Sandman's attempt to get his competitor (me) off the wiki page. His next step will likely be to get his interviews listed as he has already suggested. That issue aside, the DMOZ page isnt listing a whole bunch of sites, just a handful. The suggestion that you can only be listed in one ot the other is absurd really. It means the best sites cant be listed here if their listed there, which doesnt add to the quality of THIS page. Joeychgo 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to get your site off the wiki page? Don't look now, but your site isn't on the wiki page. It was removed due to violations of Wikipedia protocol, including disregarding the WP:EL, edit wars, and vandalism. It had nothing to do with me - I didn't even know the vBulletin article existed until the mediation had begun. And by no means do I consider vBFAQ a competitor to TAZ.

Not adding anything by linking to the DMOZ page? Of course we are - it contains a link to your site as well as other sites which you say should be linked. In addition, it appears to be well maintained (thanks Alucard!). It is exactly what should be listed as an external link - the WP:EL says so, unbiased editors participating in this discussion say so, and common sense says so. The reason for using the DMOZ page is to get an external listing of pertinent links so as to avoid additional links within the article to keep Wikipedia from becoming a link farm. A site listed on DMOZ should not be listed again within the article. That does not benefit the Wiki reader - it only benefits the site owner. One need only visit vBFAQ and read his article on Link Building to see how important a link like this is to joeychgo and why it's not good enough for him to be linked via the DMOZ page.

I've been doing some digging into the WP:EL. The guidelines there are not a first draft effort by a single editor.

Quoting WP:EL:
The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus.

The WP:EL page has gone through a lot of revisions, and many pages of discussions, to get where it is today. The purpose of the guidelines, in large part, is to prevent the inclusion of links which are of more benefit to the site owner than the Wiki reader - i.e. to prevent spamming. The guidelines are not "carved in stone" - they can be changed if the situation warrants is - but that needs to be determined by a concensus of unbiased editors. Despite trying for more than a year, joeychgo's site has been removed by a number of different unbiased editors. It's time we let the system work the way it's supposed to. It's contrary to the Wiki philopsphy for us to make up a bunch of rules as we have been trying to do. We need to simplify it a bit.

I suggest:

• Automatic Links
  

- The official vBulletin website
- The official vBulletin mod website
- vBulletin related sites on DMOZ

• Procedure for requesting the inclusion of additonal links for non-official sites which are not already listed in the vBulletin section of DMOZ:
  

- Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.
- In order to be eligible for inclusion, you should be able to demonstrate that the site has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.

This way, the number of links on the page is kept to a minimum, vBulletin-related sites are available to the Wiki reader via the DMOZ link, a standard is advanced for ensuring that a proposed external link is notable/significant, and unbiased editors have plenty of latitude to evaluate each request and give their opinion without being bound by a bunch of "rules" beyond what is already written into the WP:EL.

Several people have mentioned links to articles and/or interviews. I am not going to campaign for the inclusion of TAZ. However, I will point out that an interview with the lead developer/project manager of vBulletin is directly on point for this article. There is more than one interview with Kier Darby as mentioned above, but the one on TAZ is the most recent. And compared to SitePoint or Olate, TAZ is far more vBulletin oriented. I've never added a link to the vBulletin article, and I won't in the future. But I could certainly see an unbiased editor doing so. The Sandman 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandman - I am pretty much back to ignoring you. I will say this. The DMOZ page has 6 non official links. Interestingly, 3 of those links could be seen as competitors to TAZ, and you want to exclude any link that appears there from the wiki page. That concept in and of itself bewilders me because it means that if DMOZ listed the absolute best resource for vB users, that it couldnt be listed here. So the qiki page suffers because DMOZ listed the link also. I dont see a real problem with the DMOZ link, but that one point. I dont think its a necessary link in this case, (since the DMOZ catagory doesnt contain much) but it doesnt hurt I suppose.

Past that, We have come close to agreement here on a few occasions. And every time, Sandman comes up with something new to debate about. Some new twist that gets thrown in. Active members on a forum, national or international media attention, etc etc. This is becoming real counter productive. In the meantime the wiki page is locked and cant be edited in any context while we bicker over how strict we should be. SO - Let me backtrack and offer yet another proposal:

Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.*

To be eligible for linking, a site:

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org) If not an official vBulletin site , must meet the following criteria:
• Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be an active/consistantly updated site
• Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product
• Must be dedicated to vBulletin
• Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users
• A guideline limit of 4 non-official sites. This isnt a hard limit, but if we go past 4, they should be very good sites.

I thought Sandman's idea of Articles & Interviews might be worthwhile, but lets discuss that seperately. They are apart from the normal EL situation. Those may also be better included in the content of the page instead of the links area.

So, can we agree on this for now and get back to business? We arent going to make it perfect and its clear, we arent going to agree 100%. Joeychgo 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

It is useless for a site owner seeking inclusion to write up their own set of rules which do not address activity or significance in any meaningful way. Since we now all agree that any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it, there is no need to add a bunch of rules to what already exists in the WP:EL. Furthermore, there is a concensus of opinion of the WP:EL Talk Page that a site should not be excluded as an external link simply because it's topic is broad if there is a defined section of that site dedicated to the subject of the article.

So, I propose:

• Automatic Links
  

- The official vBulletin website
- The official vBulletin mod website
- vBulletin related sites on DMOZ

• Procedure for requesting the inclusion of additonal links for non-official sites which are not already listed in the vBulletin section of DMOZ:
  

- Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.
- The site must be dedicated to vBulletin, or must have a specific section dedicated to vBulletin.
- In order to be eligible for inclusion, you should be able to demonstrate that the site is active and has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community or been the subject of national or international media attention.

There's no need for further rules - an editor requesting an external link on the talk page simply states the reasons they believe the site is appropriate and gets a concensus opinion. I wouldn't even call these rules - simply clarifications of the WP:EL as relates to the vBulletin article. The Sandman 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One last bark - I've been reading this and I agree with The Sandman. I also think his interview with Kier has relevance in this article as does the portal wars. My only concern is that the DMoz link will only be to communities supporting vBulletin, whereas vbPortal is an addon for vBulletin. Scotsmist 15:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny how your 'clarifications' now seem to allow TAZ in.... "or must have a specific section dedicated to vBulletin." ---NO - I disagree with this - and I disagree with the "sites which are not already listed in the vBulletin section of DMOZ". -- SO - we are still going in circles. Sandman is still trying to worm TAZ in and Scotsmist is still trying to worm vBportal in. Both of you have been told no by pretty much everyone... So - Demon - when do we start mediating because this is nothing more then the talk page revisited.Joeychgo 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to clarify any links, I am agreeing with The Sandman's proposal. I happened to mention that one DMoz link means all sites under one Dmoz page/category, so lets word it thoughtfully so it doesn't just imply vbulletin fan sites, but also includes style sites and addon sites. I happened to mention the interview and portal wars being more relevant to the article and not the external links. The only one wanting linked is you, we are afaik, happy with dmoz, you're the only one squirming like a worm about your link. Scotsmist 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I got news for you. Nobody has cared about the portal wars for a few YEARS. There is no relevance today. And I am concerned about the future of this page and how we deal with this section so we dont continue this problem further. Nobody is squirming about DMOZ - I oppose it as I have stated. When all of sandman's proposals seem to indicate the excluision of sites that could be seen as competition to his, while allowing his - I see a problem. Joeychgo 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

what are the portal wars?

This is still going on ?? what is this, 3 or 4 months ? taz and phpportal is still trying to get listed when its So clear neither should be listed.. Why is this still being discussed ? - Brandon

I thought I made it quite clear but I shall spell it out for you joey and brandon - I a g r e e w i t h o n l y t h e o f f i c i al l i n k s a n d D m o z - OK? Scotsmist 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

SO, here we sit....

Again - I propose:

Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it.* To be eligible for linking, a site:

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org) If not an official vBulletin site , must meet the following criteria:
• Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be an active/consistantly updated site
• Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product
• Must be dedicated to vBulletin
• Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users

A guideline limit of 4 non-official sites. This isnt a hard limit, but if we go past 4, they should be very good sites.

Joeychgo 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a Poll?

I've been watching the debate closely, if not being directly involved. I see two major proposals being tossed around, and I thought...why not just put it to a poll to see what has greater support amongst you all? Please merely indicate your approval/disapproval of each topic posted, with your signature. We'll discuss where to go once we've seen where we all stand. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added another proposal based on the discussions above as well as on the discussions taking place on the WP:EL Talk Page. The Sandman 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it. To be eligible for linking, a site:

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org)
• If not an official vBulletin site , must meet the following criteria:
  • Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be an active/consistantly updated site
  • Must exist first and foremost as a support/community site to support vB users, rather than to sell a product
  • Must be dedicated to vBulletin
  • Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users
  • A guideline limit of 4 non-official sites. This isnt a hard limit, but if we go past 4, they should be very good sites.

Yes

1. Joeychgo 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Brandon - 2-25-07
3. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No

1. The Sandman 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Scotsmist 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Only allow official vB sites and a link to DMOZ.

Yes

1. The Sandman 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Scotsmist 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No

1. Joeychgo 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Brandon - 2-25-07

Proposal 3

Any editor seeking to add a link to the vBulletin article MUST make their request via the article's talk page and get a concensus opinion of unbiased editors before adding it. To be eligible for linking, a site:

• Must be an official vBulletin site (ie: vB.com, vB.org)
• If not an official vBulletin site , must meet the following criteria:
  • Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be authoritative, verifiable, and a recognized authority site
  • Must consist primarily of free content as a resource site for vB users as opposed to a promoting/selling a commercial product
  • Must be dedicated to vBulletin or have a specific section dedicated to vBulletin
  • If the DMOZ vBulletin relatd sites link is used, sites listed there are not eligible

Yes

1. The Sandman 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No

1. Joeychgo 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Scotsmist 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Brandon - 2-25-07
4. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

How does all of this sound to you guys? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I've added another proposal based on the current discussion as well as the discussions taking place on the WP:EL Talk Page. Specifically, although I could live with Proposal #2, I don't believe it would stand up to scrutiny by the majority of editors. Proposal #1 is completely devoid of any meaningful criteria to determine if a site is appropriate as an external link. Currently, the wording being used on the WP:EL Talk Page to gauge whether a site should be listed or not is "authoritative, verifiable, and a recognized authority" so I've added that to Proposal #3.

Likewise, the concensus on the WP:EL Talk Page is that a site with a broader focus than the subject of the article should be eligible for listing if it has a specific section dedicated to the subject (as long as the link is pointed at the specific area dedicated to the subject), so I've added that as well.

As far as DMOZ vBulletin page goes, I really don't care if it's used or not - but if it is, sites listed there should not be eligible to be linked directly from the article as external links. The Sandman 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, only worried about your site being linked... Ive said it before and I'll say it again... Whether a site is listed on DMOZ or not should have no relevance as to whether its linked here. It doesnt make the site any more or less valuable to people who visit this page. Joeychgo 05:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that many of the people participating in this discussion would like to have their site in the external links section. There is no reason to keep bringing the "you only want your site linked" point up when discussing this issue, it will only lead to people explaining their position over and over again which we've already done far too many times.

We are here to argue policy, not position. The goal should here should be working out a policy that we can apply to any site that requests to be linked in the future. I'm sure you all would have a much easier time working out a policy everyone can agree on if you would stop worrying about everyone else's agenda. Getting an unbiased opinion was the entire reason for having mediation in the first place. :)

I have been watching this page for some time and felt a reply from an 'on-looker' might help the situation. This post is not targeted directly at the parent but is aimed at all parties. I am just attempting to follow the flow of discussion by making this a child post of the parent.

I hope my posting this is ok as I'm not 100% sure if it's allowed. I will continue to watch this discussion! :) 216.215.128.6 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So the poll resulted in a equal split from #1 & #2 -- Now what?

Well, I've been rather distracted with other MedCom business (not to mention the whole deal with Essjay), so I hadn't had the time to read over it yet. Given this is the case, we appear back to square one...as the first two proposals were where we began. However, I think we can say that among this group in mediation, you guys seem to have rejected the third option. However, there does not appear to be much editing to this dispute anymore...has it gone stale? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've somewhat left WP for the time being. Because of many things - including the Essjay thing - so I might not be on as much as before. Sorry. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It hasnt gone stale for me - I just see our positions pretty much locked at this point.... For me, its about the DMOZ issue. I dont believe a site should be excluded from listing here because its listed in dmoz. Joeychgo 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in again, here, but I'm not sure that this is a discussion for this mediation - the WP:EL page says "Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ)" - the implication there (as I see it) is that this shouldn't be a duplicate. If that is an issue then I would suggest it should be discussed as general policy over on that page, rather than something specific to this mediation. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember saying a site should be excluded from listing here because its listed in dmoz, but I did vote that the only links included should be the two official jelsoft links and one to a dmoz category. If vbulletin.com is listed here and in dmoz so what. Your site shouldn't be listed here, it should only be listed in dmoz or not at all. Scotsmist 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

How is it that a participant in the mediation unlaterally declares the outcome in their favor, then proceeds to disregard the rules that they improperly implement? The Sandman 23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The mediation was closed. (Unsigned comment)

If your going to comment it would help if you signed it! Who closed it and what was the outcome and who decided it ? Yet again joeychgo goes and adds his link to the page. Would a mediator please remove those links and put it back to the two official links and dmoz, as it was before joeychgo edited it, I do not want to be accused of vandalism. Scotsmist 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC). The reason given for closure was: Stale: Lack of activity. Parties seem uninterested in mediation, and disagreement on article and article talk page seem to have died down.

Now - I took one of SANDMANs suggested links structures and placed it. Joeychgo 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The mediation was closed with no resolution of the issues at hand, and therefore the article should be left as it was before the mediation started and a different means of addressing these issues (3rd party mediation or arbitration) undertaken. It is completely unnacceptable for a participant in the mediation to have made changes to the article at this point, especially since in doing so they are simply listing their own site without obtaining approval by a concensus of editors on the article's talk page in clear violation of the WP:EL as well as the "new guidelines" they say they are promoting. It is exactly this type of vandalism that has taken us to our current situation. The Sandman 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sandman, I agree with you - there was no consensus reached and no change should have been made. I have put a suggestion on the Article's Talk page about a possible next step. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)