Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/VBulletin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Welcome and Thank You 

message: 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)
thread_title: Havok's position

message: 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)
thread_title: scotsmist

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sandman's Opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free, good measure? 

message: 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 ====
# Joeychgo 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 1 

message: # Joeychgo 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # The Sandman 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: Only allow official vB sites and a link to DMOZ.
==== Yes ====
# The Sandman 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: # The Sandman 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # Joeychgo 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: 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 ====
# The Sandman 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 3 

message: # The Sandman 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # Joeychgo 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No