Jump to content

Talk:VBulletin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Something

I'm glad other readers have spotted the ad-like qualities of this piece - my first reaction when I read it was "WOW! How on EARTH did they think they would get away with that????". Quite frankly I think it reads more like an ad than most other unashamedly commercial ads. IMHO, its appalling, and in itself is enough to put me off the product...ESPECIALLY as there are lots of FREE solutions out there that do just as much, and don't blow so hard.

I LOVE wikipedia....PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont let it get subverted by naked self-aggrandizement and commercialism like this!

Is there any chance of adding some flash videos of interviews with a representative of the company that produced the software? And, possibly, a Blog section in which they could write weekly entries about their current activities, musing and other products they wish to promote?

Seriously, it's interesting that Wikipedia is developing into such a transparent advertising tool. Played carefully, there could be potential to rise financially in the way that Google has done. If the originators do not wish this to happen they would seem to have an interesting challenge on their hands. But perhaps advertising is part of the long-term plan?

People with a vested interest in putting across a 'message' (advert) - companies, self-promoters, agents, etc. - put large amounts of time and / or money into advertising. Wikipedia is a free, easy platform for this. Is there a wish or a way to exercise any meaningful control of direction in such a 'democratic' environment?

(Written by a Wikipedia user who watches with interest the slow, steady shift from information to message). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.192.235 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sites where you can download free add-ons?

Yes --- vBulletin.org, vBhackers.com and vBwebmaster.com
Just remember you need a valid version of vB, which is validated before you get access to these mods. Havok 28 June 2005 07:41 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the link to www.vBwebmaster.com --- why?

Because there is no valid reason to have a list of 800 fan based sites that are unoffical. Zachery.Woods

Hopefully I've improved the NPOV in the links section by explicitly listing official sites and grouping the unofficial ones in the relevant Google Directory entry. This way we link to unofficial sites but prevent the article becoming a collection of unofficial links. --83.98.253.113 13:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a link to vBulletin's Board of the Month page? This would be an official link that showcases the best forums running vBulletin software, not to mention it's a link that's hard to find on vBulletin's official site.

Article

It's good to have an article on vBulletin, but it's missing quite a bit; the history of its creation is an interesting story. The article has a few biased aspects.

"AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) integration for easy moderation."

  • I don't see the problem with this line, it's there to inform what AJAX is used for, in this case moderation, and to make it easier for the user. Havok 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"For full list of features" link to vB site shouldn't be in the article body.

Is the pricing really necessary? It makes the article look like an ad. Maybe just mention the fact that there's two different license types.

It's also weritten in the second person, when it shuld be in the third.

vBulletin 3.5 has ben released today, updated the article to that effect.

Is it really necessary to have anything besides the developer staff list--if even that? It doesn't really serve a purpose because most users will not know (or care) who those people are, unless they are part of the vB.com/vB.org community. Rob.daemon 09:06, 6 Nov. 2005 (US/Pacific)

BBcode

I made this Borgs8472 22:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how adding custom tags falls within the scope of this article. Or, at the least, this section could definitely be cleaned up a bit. Bit Haze 22:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This section would probably be more at home in the Wikipedia: name space. Additionally it seems to me that [wikipedia] would be more appropiate than [wiki]. Frank Quist 15:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
^ ^ do you use bbcodes? The shorter the better Borgs8472 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tweaking

"Neutralizing" some of the article language as time permits. I run a vBulletin 3.5-based board and love the software, but this article should avoid superlatives and anything resembling marketing-speak.

Shouldn't there be more information? I know, add it myself ...

Dates of version upgrades and new features added with each upgrade. Origins and history of vBulletin (the UBB roots). Impex. Sctipt, CMS and MediaWiki integration.

Again, this shouldn't be an ad! vBulletin is one of amny excellent message board systems out there.

  • AdminCP -> Custom BB Codes -> Add New BB Code:
Title: Wikipedia
Tag: wiki
Replacement: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{param}]{param}[/url]
Example: [wiki]VBulletin[/wiki]
Description: Wrap the [ wiki ] bbcode around key words in a discussion to allow readers to find out more about a particular topic or word without separate search being required by the poster.
Use {option}: No
Button Image: Not designed

This was originally in the article; I've removed it because we're supposed to avoid self-references, and also because it's poorly formatted. æle ✆ 01:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing poorly formatted about it :p Borgs8472 00:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The external links section has become quite the hot-spot for changes. People continually add and remove their site's links and it's rather annoying because there is no hard-and-fast rule for what can and what can and cannot go in that section. I think that the rule should be this: only officially Jelsoft-recognized sites should be placed there. That limits it to: www.vbulletin.com, www.vbulletin.org, www.vbulletin-germany.com, and www.vbulletin-chinese.com.

The two foreign-language ones are recognized here. And www.vbulletin.org is recognized here (see the "vBulletin Customization @ vBulletin.org).

That's how I think it should be implemented: only if there is a link on the official vB site should a link be placed in this section. Comments? Rob.daemon 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree unless someone can make a very strong argument why their site is essential further reading. This is one of WP's most spammed pages, it seems. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
www.vbwebmaster.com is the only forum dedicated to vbulletin administrators. There is no such forum that is jelsoft recognized. This is an important resource for vBulletin owners and those considering owning a vBulletin. It is also a non commercial site. But I agree there shouldnt be 2 dozen sites listed that sell skins and hacks and graphics - Joeychgo
That may be true, but you're not a neutral source. I went to the site and your an administrator. And I'm a vB owner and a community regular, but I've never heard of this site until the Wiki article. Rob.daemon 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Netural source or not doesnt change what I said. Its a non commercial site thats dedicated to only VB owners and prospective owners.
Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to. æle ✆ 14:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Its not a link I posted to promote the site. - Leave the link alone.

It says clearly that only links to official vB sites should be posted, and if you posted it with the argument "www.vbwebmaster.com is the only forum dedicated to vbulletin administrators. There is no such forum that is jelsoft recognized. This is an important resource for vBulletin owners and those considering owning a vBulletin." it is to promote your site. Do not re-add it please. Havok (T/C) 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

only links to official vB sites should be posted was added long after a link to vBwebmaster was placed. Do not RE-Remove it please.
That's now being re-evaluated as things on Wikipedia are. And regardless of what it said before, it appears that the consensus now is that it should be official links only. Also, sign your comments (use the ~~~~ macro)! Rob.daemon 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the offical vBulletin Germany site for vBulletin modifications (www.vbhacks-germany.com/forum/index.php). See the vBulletin.org forums for more information (vBulletin.org). Near the bottom of the forum list you'll find a link to the site ("vBHacks-Germany.com, Official Support Site for Hacked German vBulletin Boards") 216.215.128.255

Thanks, I didn't know that the site existed. And thanks for providing a reference. Rob.daemon 07:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I figured you'd just remove it if I didn't provide a refernce ;) 216.215.128.130

IMO there's quite some bias now in the edits and reverts related to the external links. The vBHackers.com link was allowed to stay, while the link to the ODP was reverted by the very same editor who has kept removing other unofficial links, while still allowing vBHackers.com to be linked to. So to maintain a consistant policy, it's either 1) only official links or 2) all types of external links. No exceptions like vBHackers.com can be made, because that's not a consistant policy. My own compromise solution would be to have a link to the ODP for other external resources, which have been validated by ODP staff. I've now removed vBHackers.com and I expect that nobody starts toying around with those external links again. As for the rest, somekind of settlement should be reached. --Rasbelin 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as no compromise will ever be met it seems, I have removed the entire section. As such, no more arguments will happen. Havok (T/C/c) 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont believe that is any resolution. The other Wiki pages have external links, even for other forum software such as PHPbb. I agree, commercial sites should not be listed, so a site that only sells a product shouldnt be listed as that is spammy. Sites not dedicated to vBulletin should not be listed. But any site that is a resource for the vBulletin user should be listed. Wikipedia is for information - not turf protection. I have returned the external links section.Joeychgo
Joeychgo, I assume at that least you can agree with me that at least vBulletin.com and .org should be listed, if nothing else? If so, I suggest we first get a consensus on these two external links and then discuss from there onwards about any possible other external links on a case-to-case basis, getting a consensus before possibly adding anything else. This IMO would be the most diplomatic solution and would hopefully avoid further edit wars. --Rasbelin 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Havok, your approach is actually against the Wikipedia's policies on external links. WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to Furthermore going ahead and ripping away all links is just plain childish. I think everyone should now take a deep breath and work things out to achieve a mutual consensus. I'm sure you can agree about the approach I suggested to Joeychgo. --Rasbelin 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it is not policy, it's a guide. A link to vbulletin.com is allready featured in the product/company box at the very top of the page. So instead of vB's site being the only ones featured on the page, the entire section should be removed until consensus has been met. I would suggest a poll for different links, where we can use support, against and neutral. Any objections to this? Havok (T/C/c) 07:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I make a counter suggestion. I agree regarding the poll and the votings alternatives, but I disagree regarding the current situation and what the current (ie. as I type this) external links are. I suggest that we keep the current external links, as they follow the guidelines/policies (it's a different matter of debate if it's a guideline or policy, but if it would be just a mere guideline, we could just as well cut the article into a one sentence long article, without any consequences, because it was "just a guideline") regarding external linking. Other than that, I suggest the same as Havok has proposed. --Rasbelin 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a guidelines, it says so on the page. All official policies are taged as official policy. Of course you could cut the article into one sentence (which would get you a warning for vandalisme and revert), but that is not the discussion we are having here. The discussion is about which external links to keep. Havok (T/C/c) 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now taken the liberty to restore my proposed version and await further feedback to this discussion, which could hopefully be kept creative. If the reverting continues, I'll request the article to be locked. --Rasbelin 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as my solution would stop the reverting, you only add fuel to the fire. Read my comment above and give me your response to it. Havok (T/C/c) 07:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And you don't apparently know well enough the Wikipedia policies related to external links or then you just didn't care enough about the point I tried to make. See the internal link I provided in my previous reply to you abit higher up on this page. Especially pay attention to the point about linking to official sites. That's not something which is to add fuel to the fire, but actually trying to adhere to the official policies and make this article work. Now I think you can agree that official policy should be obeyed. So this can be concluded that the two current links present can be seen as a mandatory external links. As for other possible links, I think we should follow a case-to-case practice to evaluate them. However no links at all is not an option, because that violates the rules (or at least it can be argued the article is less useful then) and it's just stupid to act like you've done by forcing a "no links" policy, as it will just cause the links to come back sooner or later. A consensus is needed, which is what I try to get here. --Rasbelin 07:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no mandatory linking on WP, it's a guidline, not a policy. There is no way it says "External links MUST be in every single article." and by adding fuel to the fire I mean that you are purposely adding official links, when the guidelines state that there should be unofficial links on the list aswell. My suggestion to remove the links will not break any rules, regulation, policy or guidelines, it is merly a way to to let us decide on which links to keep. Havok (T/C/c) 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually there's in a sense mandatory external links on Wikipedia, or at least what could be called de facto mandatory external links, because it has become a standard the articles about companies and/or their products have an official link, just like the guideline suggests. So yes, it's not a outright written rule which can be put in a verbatim form, but a de facto rule based on common community practice. Just look up the articles for eg. Sun Microsystems, The Coca-Cola Company, Invision Power Boards or General Electric. IMHO this constitutes a doctrine which is plausible to apply here too. I do understand in a sense why removing everything could be a good idea, but I assume you can agree that most likely at least the two current external links would return. However I'm willing to compromise on this, as long as this becomes a working solution and the external links guideline and the de facto rules it has created, are being followed in this case too. So I accept your voting proposition and suggest we put it into action. I've removed all external links and request an edit lock until further notice, so this dispute can be solved. --Rasbelin 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand why placing non commercial sites dedicated to vBulletin is a problem? Shouldnt the reader of this article be able to find sites where he can get further information about the software? - To me that just plain makes sense. When I look around the other Wiki pages, most have such resources. What makes THIS page so special? Again, I dont think we should allow spammy sites or sites that are just there to make money. But sites such as vbhackers.com, vbwebmaster.com, vBulletin-faq.com, (among a few others) all offer broad advice and assistance to vBulletin forum owners and are great sources of information to the vBulletin admin and to someone looking to know more about the product. In other words they are useful to those reading the article and are not biased by being an 'official' Jelsoft site. This approach works fine on most of Wiki - what in the world is the problem HERE????? By deleting the links you are effectively saying only Official Jelsoft links, because those are contained within the article itself. --Joeychgo 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no working policy for the EL guidelines due to the fact that there is no need for one. Of course linking back to the company is good practice, and it is allready done in the company box, so again there is really no need for the section external links. My only reason for removing the section was to stop the edit war, and start a discussion on which links to keep. And Joychgo, with no links there is no bias. There is only the official site link at the very top of the page. I have never said we shouldn't have external links, but people keep reverting, adding, removing and updating with blog links, links to commercial sites etc. This was a way to remove that until the editors reached a consensus about what to keep and what to remove. Havok (T/C/c) 06:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Havok: You avoid my actual point. Now have a look at the examples I gave and come up yourself with some other ones to check. Now you notice a link to the official site both in the facts box and in the external links. So you can't deny that there's clearly a de facto mandatory linking policy, while it's maybe not written. So why should this article be different? I have a an ich you're now just trying to defend some personal stake you have in this. Having no external links defeats the point of this article as valuable, because it should then adhere to recommendable practice to meet the criteria of being a good article. As it seems, you're so far alone about supporting no external links at all. If there's no further support for it, the external links section will contain links. Joeychgo: Can you at least agree with my logic about there being external links, which should at least contain the links to the two official English language sites (vBulletin.com and .org)? Or are you suggesting the external links should be something else? --Rasbelin 04:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The guide which you speak of also says that the external links section should not be biased with only official links. There is nothing manditory about external linking. It is up to the editors to decide what should be linked, if anything should. And my only point - as stated before - is that if the extern links section is removed until we find a collection of links we want featured in the article, there won't be any arguments from anyone. Do you disagree with this? And how does not having external links defeat the point of this article as valuable? What makes this article valuable is the content of it, not the links it points to. I have nothing more to say, all I have ever said on the matter and the feelings I have about it are written in the comments above. Take them as you please, I only wanted the argument to stop by removing what the argument was about until a better solution came along. Havok (T/C/c) 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have suggested, and suggested and suggested - nobody wants to listen. Ive offered a simple policy. The external links should contain external links to the official sites - but also to sites that are non commercial in nature and provide information to the reader of the article. As I said before, sites such as vbhackers.com, vbwebmaster.com, vBulletin-faq.com, (among a few others) all offer broad advice and assistance to vBulletin forum owners and are great sources of information to the vBulletin admin and to someone looking to know more about the product. In other words they are useful to those reading the article and are not biased by being an 'official' Jelsoft site. Im not talking about sites that just sell skins, or sell a vBulletin related product. Those commercial type of sites should be disallowed. Discuss that suggestion and tell me whats wrong with that? --Joeychgo
See my follow-up below for a compromise suggestion. --Rasbelin 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"And my only point - as stated before - is that if the extern links section is removed until we find a collection of links we want featured in the article, there won't be any arguments from anyone. Do you disagree with this?" No, actually I don't disagree. I can compromise on that and stop arguing about this, because I rather see some results. I suggest we start making up a list of an initial small collection of external links, which can be added once there's agreement about it. Do you two agree with this proposal? Just reply yes or no. If we all agree, then I'll post a few suggestions and we can progress from that. When a settlement is reached and everyone is okay with the list, I'll request unprotection and add them to the article. --Rasbelin 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. But - what about future links? We need a basic set of guidelines as to what to aceept and what not. --Joeychgo
I'd say we should make a comprehensive, but yet limited selection of initial external links, thus not having to keep on adding new ones in the future. The initial set of links pretty much sets the standard for what to include in the future too, if something would be added. --Rasbelin 07:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A link to www.vbseo.com should be included in external links. It is by far the largest community dedicated to discussion of vBulletin search engine optimization & has emerged as the source of one of the most widely known plugins and a prominent vBulletin related forum. Its relevance to the topic and value to users interested in vBulletin is clearly equivalent or surpassing in comparison to the other vBulletin external links. There may be some opposition because vBSEO is a commercial plugin. However, this does not discredit its informational value and suitability for inclusion in this wikipedia entry. vBulletin itself is, of course, a commercial plugin. --User:Hybridx 15:02, 17 August 2006 (AST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.118.41 (talk • contribs)


I disagree. vBSEO's website is a support forum for its software, and all SEO discussions are skewed / biased toward their product. vBSEO is a commercial product. It should not be listed here. --Joeychgo

Reinstating {{cleanup}}

This article is still very incoherent past the first sentence, and some of it reads like ad copy. I'm putting the cleanup tag back on until we can decide on a good cleaned-up version. æle ✆ 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I found some time today to rewrite this article completely. I removed the entire bit about pricing, options, and all that stuff--it's like an advertisement. I removed the section about vBulletin.org because this is about software, not vBulletin and its surrounding aura. I changed the section on versions to be a more of "what has changed" list as opposed to a feature list. I cover vBulletin 2 and vBulletin 1 and vB Lite. I also added a history block. I revised it quite a bit in my sandbox to make it sound as NPOV-free as possible. Comments/changes welcome as long as they improve :). Rob.daemon 23:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN

I've removed the ownership comment from the article text regarding external links. Wikipedia does not endorse only "official" links for anything (or, at least, it shouldn't). Obvious spam should be removed, but care should be taken to not disallow links that may be useful to readers or which aren't an attempt at spam. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with article ownership. Nobody's claiming that they own the article. æle ✆ 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Only "official" vBulletin links? You don't see how that makes it look like the article is owned by the creators of vBulletin? And in any event, there's also neutral point of view concerns to only allowing "official" links. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP:OWN only applied in cases where one or more contributors were actually claiming to own the article. NPOV concerns are an entirely different matter. æle ✆ 02:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:OWN isn't specific regarding if it affects individuals or entities/groups, but I believe the intent was that no one may claim ownership over any part of an article. I believe saying only "official" links are allowed is effectively a claim of ownership over part of the article (no one may claim any article, in whole or in part, as their own). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense to me - especially sites that are not spammy or non commercial. Its one thing to list a site that jsut sells a releated product - thats spammy. Its another to list a resource useful for those who will visit this page. —Joeychgo •
Generally, I'd agree with you, Joey, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link suppository or suggesting of any sites as being superior to others due to a common degree of neutrality. On non-commercial pages and sites where there is a high degree of traffic then it is certainly of merit for they to be included, but by the same token, only to keep the page concise, to have 20 links is beyond ridiculous. Persoanlly, not using vBulletins much, I can't say that much about it, but I do have to say that using bulletins frequently, the sites presently listed are neutral, non-spam and (again, subjectively speaking, in my opinion) concise and helpful. Most importantly, these, to me, seem to be the most suitably to be listed here on the page, mostly due to overall reputation.
Ba3ed on the same topic, this page really isn't OWN any more (if it ever was) since I don't think anybody from vBulletin is spending as much time updating or tidying this page as the fans and general vbulletin page owners and users do.
Disagree? Let me know.
--lincalinca 09:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)!?!!

I've recently been reverting the unoffical links that keep getting added. Why? Because there are tons and tons.. and tons of fan based vB websites. We do not need a list of these 50 websites on the main article page. If we only allow some? Which do we allow? I think that in the long run it will be easier to keep all unoffical sites from this page.--Zachery.Woods 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


I'll continue to remove the links untill we get an offical ruling, that or just start adding every other link to every other fan based community.--Zachery.Woods 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed directly above:

Wikipedia does not endorse only "official" links for anything (or, at least, it shouldn't). Obvious spam should be removed, but care should be taken to not disallow links that may be useful to readers or which aren't an attempt at spam.

That is the opinion of Locke Cole, a far more experienced wiki then either you or I. Joeychgo 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you insist, off to collect every single vBulletin related website, Odd isn't it how you only add your own websites :)--Zachery.Woods 07:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, needs some arrangment, will do so tomorrow before church. If its not already done.--Zachery.Woods 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Joey, further, you have spamed this page much longer than I've been reversing your pages. My point was its easier and cleaner to disallow all unoffical links instead of trying to moderate or control which links should or should not be shown.--Zachery.Woods 08:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


First, dont accuse me of spamming. I have added a number of sites to this page and made other edits to the article and have been working on this page for a long time. Joeychgo 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem to be faced is: how to combine loyalty to one's own tradition with reverence for different traditions. The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with. I have no obligation to add other resources. Only to be certain what I add is a resource. If you have one to share, add it. But please don't edit my entry, leave it as is. Thank you. 71.49.11.104 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to External links, under the "Links to Normally Avoid" section you should avoid: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article." So you shouldn't even be adding your own site, you should put it on the talk page and let another Wikipedian decide. And in the above discussions about external links, more people thought it should remain official links only. If no decision can be agreed upon, maybe removing all external links would be the best solution. The most important one (to vbulletin.com) is already in the infobox. All the rest are just extra--at least that's what I think because this fight over external links is stupid. Wikipedia is not a links repository. Rob.daemon 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My two cents

Per WP:EL, I believe some additional unofficial links would be covered by this note under "What should be linked to":

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

Does this mean the external links section should be allowed to grow into the mess it was a few days ago? No. Occasional pruning, and consistantly checking to see if links pass the Google test are a good idea (in fact, the Google test is a fairly reasonable way of determining if a link is purely promotional; already established sites will have many Google links). Another way of checking is using Alexa to see if the site is known (and if so, if it's popular). I think removing the external links altogether is a bad idea, and similarly, I think limiting it to official links only is a bad idea.

For vBulletin, I'd think one or two links to established extension directories would be appropriate. I don't think links to sites which are "forums for administrators" are helpful (if that's all they have; obviously an admin site that has a directory of extensions/plugins/addons/whatever, a forum, and guides should be considered on the merits of everything it offers).

Anyways, it looks trimmed back enough for now. When it gets to be > 4-6 links, then it might be time to consider what to remove again. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that the set of links that are listed are directly bais, I've realisticly never visited vBPicGallery, or vBulletin FAQ, being an offical staff member I constantly check over sites from time to time that may have note worthy data to pass back to customers. vBPortal and vBadvanced are also commerical sites that sell products, however these sites have been up for ages and people know them. I used to be somewhat at ends with vBPortal but thats since been resolved. vBFans is just a fan based forum that happens to be centered around vBulletin. I honestly do not find any direct qauiitly in any of the current links. And to Joey, I looked back in the history, at times you were spamming just your link. --Zachery.Woods 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


All or nothing Zach. You can't play favorites. I had my site added by someone who thinks it's a useful resource. It's a useful resource because we offer free modifications and support for vBulletin software and the very add on products that you name. I can cite many examples where vBulletin users needed our resource and utilized it as a means to an end when the origial sites failed to be a resource. That fact alone makes the computer help forum and the vBulletin FAQ resource websites that transcend the originals. Others should know they can find help when they don't get help from the original resource. 

71.49.11.104


You are right, all or nothing, which is what I've been saying, Either we allow ALL vBulletin related sites that are unoffical, or we allow none. Right now we only have a few. I feel this is wrong, we should list them all if we are going to list one. Who are we to pick and choose which unoffical sites get listed.--Zachery.Woods 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We're Wikipedia editors who want to keep the external links section from growing unchecked? In my case at least, I also believe there's sites out there that likely contain information relevant to people curious about vBulletin, but whose content would be inappropriate (or impossible to include) in this article? It's most definitely not an "all or nothing" decision. (As with article text: we don't let articles grow out of control; if they get too large we either break sections out into their own separate articles, or we trim back what's there to make it more readable). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So then what purpuse does vBPicGallery - Photo Gallery Script for vBulletin Forums serve in the list of links? Its a commercial gallery script. --Zachery.Woods 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't add it, however noppid probally did, I'm sure I could do a quick ipaddress search? :)--Zachery.Woods 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So how the heck is it that sites that are either unknown to most of the vB community or are "private" sites not considered to be spam? Looks like it's a case of persistence paying off... if somebody edits their site back in every time eventually it'll be allowed but legitimate sites that are well known in the community got knocked off, eh? 198.23.5.10 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a Jelsoft site

Wickipedia is NOT a Jelsoft site. Only having "Official" Jelsoft links is inappropriate and not the way Wiki does things. Other related and non spam sites are permissible and appropriate to be listed here. This is a knowlegebase and a resource for users, and listing other websites that have information about vBulletin are entirely appropriate. STOP PLAYING WITH THE EXTERNAL LINKS —Joeychgo

Most of the vB sites out there need you to be have registered a copy of the vB software. And as such would not be appropriate to add, it adds nothing to the article if this is the case. If it's a site reviewing the software, that has expansive information that goes beyond what is on the official site, then go right ahead, but please do write on this talk page what you want to add, and why. If you check the posts about this subject above, you will see that this has been the topic of hot debate before. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I wrote this because some people seem to think only 'official' Jelsoft sites should be listed. Thats completely inappropriate. —Joeychgo

this page appears to be suffering from automated vandalism

An anonymous user repeatedly blanks this page. Suggesting immediate semi-protect.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - The "v"

It has been stated numerous times ([1] and [2] were the ones that came to mind) that it does not actually stand for anything. Yes, John did run a forum called VB-WORLD but the official position on the name is that the vBulletin wasn't derived from the forum. Rob.daemon 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads that two staff members confirmed that the v doesn't stand for anything. However the current staff member Zachary was not staff member at the time. Does he count as a visitor for that or as a staff member? --Mephisteus 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Want another 'official' response? freddie says.. Freddie Bingham

Another unofficial explanation that is going around is that V comes after U in the alphabet, like vBulletin came after UBB. 83.84.56.163 14:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's another completely incorrect speculation. Kier, vBulletin Lead Developer had a specific comment regarding this. He also confirmed that the "v" in vBulletin stands for nothing. This by far the oldest and most credible comment on the mysterious "v" in vBulletin, because it's the only comment that referenced John Percival's opinion. 41.209.72.100 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Version history

I don't think we need an exhaustive list of changes; even the shorter sections for 3.5 seem excessive. æle ✆ 2006-06-03t14:28z

Could be thrown down to the few main things added (multi-quote, infraction system, RSS poster bot, maybe signature limitations) . However since its a page *about* the software I don't see why not go in-depth on it. And seeing as its version history why not give a full list. Thats just my opinion though. --Mephisteus 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Also, the current sitation stating where the "v" came from is down, that thread most likely got deleted.


v3.6

Do we really need a link to all the beta-threads? Maybe keeping the last one should be sufficient? Tasja 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Other Forum Software

I'm going through the "internet forum software" articles hunting down what I feel is a useless line that's appeared in some of them. That line is "it is comparable to other forum software such as Simple Machines Forum, Invision Power Board, phpBB, UBB.threads and MyBulletinBoard". I feel the line should be adjusted to "it is comparable to other forum software" for the following reasons:

  1. The previous line which listed many forums is open to abuse. Already the vBulletin article has a list of 5 "comparable" products.
  2. We have the Comparison of Internet forum software article so let's use that fairly comprehensive list rather than starting to list everything in all of the individual product's articles.
  3. My personal opinion is that the line is not required at all (after all, all "internet forum software" must surely have some similar features) but as someone felt the line was required in the first place and we have the comparative article as per point 2, it might be wiser to adjust it instead.

I am making this change to other's as I find them (being bold and all) but as this page is protected, I figure some of you may want to discuss it. Yay unto the Chicken 10:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be off-topic, but I'd really like to know if this is a superior package to something like phpBB. It looks nice, has the feel of a real BBS, but costs a lot of money. And I hear the author of the package will chase anyone down who uses an unlicensed copy (how they find out someone didn't pay for their copy I don't know). Is it really worth the buy and is there anything better than phpBB? Insidia 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have used phpBB, IPB, UBB and PunPP. Non of them have come close to being as good as vB. Ok, it's got a steep price tag on it, but it's actually very much worth it. Havok (T/C/c) 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you my friend. I have been noticing more and more boards using vB, so what you are saying seems to have good merit. Insidia 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Off-topic again. I have used phpBB, XMB, IPB (when it was free) and I have a good idea what the others you mentioned are. However, I haven't tried out vB, but as far as I know MyBB would be similar feature-wise, and that's what I have sticked to.

Unprotecting

This has been protected for well over two weeks now, and there is little or no ongoing discussion over disputes. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No references

This article fails to cite any references, in particular concerning the history section, the trivia, and the criticisms. As such this article needs to be flagged. User:Mikemill 08:17, 28 Auguest 2006 (UTC)

why

why is vbulletin-faq on the list ? it isn't offical, and the admin think they are god's.. not something you want to associate with Vb IMO


Read up - this has been discussed and decided.


this site shouldn't be allowed here,, the staff is Not helpful


everyone has a personal opinion. The fact that the site has lot's of vBulletin webmasters using it means it is in fact a useful resource.

So do many webmaster sites,, digital point, adminfusion, among others.. yet you don't list them.. vb-faq isn't a good site, ran by arrogant staff who think they are gods..


Yes, but vBulletin FAQ is dedicated to vBulletin forums - You dont have to like the site or the staff, but that doesnt make it not a vBulletin resource. Clearly your editing is motivated by personal feelings and not objectivity. This issue has been discussed and decided. We list non commercial vBulletin dedicated resource sites here. vBfaq is just that. SO is vB hackers and vB advanced, which is why I added them originally --Joeychgo

Then why stop at vbfaq ? there are a half dozen other quality vb help sites that are not listed.. Do they get listed also ? btw, vBh isn't listed ? and this isn't a matter of personal vendetta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.220.223 (talk • contribs)

Can everyone please stop adding and removing links now? It has been discussed before, and the editors of this article have all come to an agreements about which to keep and which to remove. I am reverting all edits as vandalism and warning you accordingly. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 10:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You should add http://forum.vbulletinsetup.com then, the staff is friendly and they helped me with my site even when vbulletin.org wouldn't take time out for a new person like myslef. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.42 (talk • contribs)

If your referring to vB hackers (vbh) - I relist them every time someone pulls them. I agree they are a good site to list. I am not the one who keeps removing things. And for the person who says we should add vbulletinsetup.com, your one of the people who keeps removing links. Why should people respect your suggestions when you dont respect anyone elses? --Joeychgo
so you assume the owner of www.vbulletinsetup is removing your links ? I can assure you they aren't. Even check the IP's if you want. Typical vb-faq stuff though, assume they know it all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.42 (talk • contribs)
Well, the same IP that is placing the vBulletinsetup links is the same person removing the others.... You can see that IP (yours) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=75.18.13.42 and here you can see your IP removing the vBFAQ link and replacing it with vBulletinSetup: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VBulletin&diff=prev&oldid=82576623 --Joeychgo
and yet again, your wrong.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.42 (talk • contribs)
Whatever. The proof is right there -- stop playing with the links. --Joeychgo
yet again, your "proof" doesn't mean a thing.. The owner of vBulletinSetup has Never removed any links.. we've only added to.. you know not everyone has a static IP, don't assume with that which you don't know ;).. If your site belongs up, so do a few other vBulletin Resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.42 (talk • contribs)
Actually, I just traced the IP on vBFAQ and look at who registered with that IP...... It came back to VBFAQ user Loco.M - and here is the post where Loco.M announced his new board, vBulletin Setup. http://www.vbulletin-faq.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1667 BUSTED Loco. --Joeychgo
??lmao, your so funny.. I've told you that I've never removed any links from here, only added to.. You can think what ever you want, I could care less.. Once again you prove that your " never wrong " attitude can't be hidden. carry on Hitler :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.42 (talk • contribs)
Proof is right there for everyone to see. They can draw their own conclusions, but the evidence is clear. Believe me, I wish I was wrong.
W/e slick, I could care less what you "think" what you've posted isn't proof, anyone can spoof an IP, or hide an IP.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.226.137 (talk • contribs)
That would break Internet traffic. Unless you're exploiting some security bug in MediaWiki, in which case that's probably grounds for an immediate block. æ² ✆ 2006-10-27t03:01z

Please sign your posts by using ~~~~ thank you. Also, please be civil. Havok (T/C/c) 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

vBulletin.org

Isn't this an official site? Havok (T/C/c) 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

why are the other vb sites removed ? if vbfaq can be up there, so should many other vb help sites..-Brandon

I didnt remove them - someone else put them back though. I cleaned them up and cleaned up the descriptions as well. Can we all leave the links alone now please? Joeychgo 15:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing them and I keep putting them all back. Pretty childish if you ask me. Code Monkey 15:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we are entering the problem we had to begin with. To many links. Wikipedia is not a link repository. This is the reason we had a really long discussion about which links to feature a while ago. Havok (T/C/c) 17:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 7 links is to many for the vB page, there are 100's of other vB admin sites that could be listed, Can't we just keep things how they are right now. It still looks find to me. -Brandon ( btw, I made an account here but forgot the name )


There are many wikipedia pages with far far more links than this. So the standards are based on what? There is no problem here other than topdogitis IMO. Code Monkey 21:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not an argument. Seeing as WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a link repository. The articles of which you speak are irrelevant because they themselves break Wikipedia policy. Take a look at Wii, it has four unofficial links, and the official ones are in direct relation to key aspects of the console. Which is more then enough. vBulletin dosn't need links to all of these hundreds of sites, because they all deal with the same thing. Havok (T/C/c) 08:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, as long as the site is not a commercial site, and it is dedicated to vBulletin and a resource for someone who is considering or wants to know more about vBulletin, the site can be listed. My only thing is that the page doesnt turn spammy with dozens of worthless links. Joeychgo 08:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm starting to agree that this page has way too many links. WP:NOT does clearly state that WP is not a link siet. It's here as an information resource. In my opinion, unless it's 100%, absolutely necessary, any page should only have 3 external links (maybe 5 if sufficient information cannot be derived from 3).
--lincalinca 12:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


For what its worth - look at other pages such as PHPbb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phpbb Numerous links there as well. Joeychgo 00:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, not the point as that article itself breaks policy. Havok (T/C/c) 11:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It was fine, now it seems a few more sites want on.. If you can't have links, then vb.com Should be the only one allowed.. It isn't fair to have one and block out others.. so if you remove some, then remove them all and leave vb.com as the only link. Brandon Sheley

I would suggest you read WP:NOT and WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a web portal or link repository, there are to many external links, and I will start removing them soon. I will keep the ones that have a high output on Google (not the best way, but a start). Oh, and this has nothing to do with what is fair, we can't accommodate all websites about vB, which is why we select a few to keep. The other alternative would be to remove the section all together and keep the official link in the company box. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all links with less then 100,000 hits on Google. I am unbiased in how I did this. If you feel that a link should be there let us first discuss it. There can not be that many links as present before I removed them, it breaks WP:NOT. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


vbfaq has hits from vb-faq and vbw since they merged.. vbulletinsetup will have 100k hits in 2 more months. -Brandon

Im not sure what you meant by hits in google. Might not be the best way - but at least it was unbiased. You'll be there soon brandon Joeychgo 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by google hits either,, and surely vbhackers gets the same amount of hits at vbfaq - brandon

I did a search for the name of the websites with " on each side. The outcome of the hits is shown in the upper right corner as Results "1 - 10 of about # for search-term". It's unbiased, which is what it should be. And stating "vbulletinsetup will have 100k hits in 2 more months." is beside the point really. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Brandon, stop playing with the links. Havok has set the policy. Joeychgo 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Joey, stop acting like d**k. You only want the link for the PR, and your results are jacked up, since you just added a full site to yours and therefor your results are off.. Havac, you should at least add vbadvanced and vbhackers ! especially if you let a site with such low quality as vbfaq on the site. There is no way either of those have a lower ranking then his.. if so, you need a new way to measure things.. Thanks-Brandon

Its not personal Brandon, stop making it that way. The policy has been set - respect it. Joeychgo 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

it may not be personal, but it sure isn't fair.. vbh and vba should be in that last Waaay b4 your site, and why do you keep removing my links Joey.. This listing isn't accurate at all IMO and several others which I'm sure will talk about it once they see there link is gone but the faq's is still placed.. Can you say Kick Back.......-Brandon

I didnt set the policy. Personally, I think vBH should be there as well, and maybe yours. But its hard to think that way when you just disregard any attempt to set a policy because it doesnt suit you. Havok has set the policy. Discuss it - dont just break it. Joeychgo 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't set a policy, I'm not the ruler of Wikipedia or this article, feel free to disagree with me, but please discuss the adding of new links. Just don't break WP:NOT and WP:EL. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand Havok, but the method your using isn't fair to all sites.. even on Joey's site he has made several post saying google is broke. You are getting results from 2 sites when you look up his.. Also vb.org shouldn't be under official links since everyone you ask at the .org says that site isn't an official site of jelsolft..-Brandon

First - I started both sites that are now vBfaq - and both sites' content are completely merged - so get off that brandon. Second, I agree Google is broke, and that may not be the best way to seach after something for criteria as to how to list sites here.

Personally, I dont care how many sites are listed here. I only care that they are non commercial, dedicated to vBulletin and not spammy. People come to this page looking for information about vBulletin. The external links are part of that information.

In the meantime brandon, every time you add your link when this issue isnt settled, you just make yourself look even more biased. Joeychgo 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

making myself look bias ? actually no I'm not. unless you mean bias that I think your crooked and hold a holier then thou attitude, then yes I'm very much bias.. I'll be adding my site to this page everyday that I see it missing ;) You do what you must, the scale isn't far but hey, what the hell.. might as well use alexa ranging..-Brandon ps. Joey, don't even act like you didn't do the Exact same thing when you wanted to get your link on this page, I only see what is discussed up ^^ there, I wasn't checking this page last year.

Ok, one thing you guys should know. Adding your own links to Wikipedia is very much against the rules. And reverting and reverting like you people do is also against the rules and will end with you being blocked. I have removed your link Brandon, please do NOT add it back. Revert wars are a childish way of trying to get your point across, if you can't discuss it like a civilized human being, please refrain from editing this article any further. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Saying "I'll be adding my site to this page everyday that I see it missing" will get you nowhere. Like I stated above, if you continue doing this you will be blocked and banned from further editing anything on Wikipedia. As what you are doing is vandalism, by reverting our reverts you only break WP:3RR which will also get you blocked. So please, just let this article be and stop adding your site to the list. Havok (T/C/e/c) 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

oh sure, thats fair.. you let joey add his site but I can't add mine ? Just let mine stay, vbulletin gets sales because of my site.. Having vbsetup is helping you guys make money.. Isn't that what it's all about ? The talk at vb.com shows that to be correct. -Brandon

The point is not to not have your site on the list. The point is the way you keep adding it, totally disregarding everyone who contribute to this article. Even going so far as to vandalizing others entry as well as being a dick about it. If you posted your wish about having the site on the talk page after you where told to, people could discuss the adding of it. Like I stated before, WP is not a link repository and as such we can't accommodate all the sites about vB. I'm not making money on this, I have nothing to do with vB, I own a vB license and I edit Wikipedia, that's it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for calling me a dick !.. Stop removing my link, if Joey can have his, then I can have mine.. if you remove our links, remove all of them together, btw.. I haven't vandalized anything, stop putting blame on me for something I haven't done.. I have and will keep adding my site, just like Joey was adding his site, but I haven't touched anyone elses link...-Brandon

1. Push the "dick" link. 2. You are vandalizing seeing as you keep adding something that isn't wanted in the article. 3. Read the policies then come back here. Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

your welcome to push your link yourself, I'm not doing anything Joey didn't do to get his link placed, have a good day -Brandon

dmoz. WP:EL recommends it. æ² ✆ 2006‑11‑20t17:45z

WP:EL: "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." Also, if you read the top, WP:EL is a manual of style while WP:NOT is official policy. I've removed all external links until this dispute has been settled (which I fear won't be in the near future). Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Please clarify: I don't see how the dmoz link falls afoul of what you quoted. æ² ✆ 2006‑11‑22t16:11z
The point here is; Almost everyone (if not all of you) who are adding links to this article are either affiliated with vB, or owner of the site you are putting up. This is the cardinal rule when adding sites to an external links section, you don't add sites that you yourself own. Also, the reason I am still removing all links is because the entire section is a victim of continued vandalism from the same people every time. So, please, please, can we discuss which sites to add and keep out? As it stands now I feel like I'm the only unbiased one here. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
(Er... are you replying to me specifically? Your threading is a little confusing.) I'm completely unaffiliated with dmoz. WP:EL does specifically recommend it:
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. If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page.
æ² ✆ 2006‑11‑23t18:03z

the phpnuke page is very similar and has been left alone, why are the links on this site taking a hammering. products that only work with vbulletin should be allowed. Scotsmist 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Because some people are the classic wanabe's that have no lot in life so they sit in their underwear at a computer and terrorize others online. Just because they can.


Havok- I replaced the links -- We have discussed this over and over and I thought we had settled on policies a few months ago. NO COMMERCIAL SITES - meaning sites that primarily sell a product - Now - how do we determine otherwise? Removing ALL the links is no solution. I suggest you have the page locked again until we can reach a consensus. AGAIN Joeychgo 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It was my impression that everything was fine as well, until people start to vandalize the article by adding links that are not wanted in the article again and again. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Just a heads up; I have asked for this page to be protected until a consensus can be meet. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I give up, I guess I didn't send Havok enough money to get my site listed.. The measuring system you used is stupid, and I said b4,, Joey is getting results from 2 sites.. Hey howabout I go buy a few webmaster sites and merge them with mine, this I'll pass your measuring system huh !.. forget it, this is a waste of my time, Who would have thought the wiki wasn't fair.. -Brandon

A wiki page about a commercial product that disallows other vBulletin specific products but allows other sites that sell commercial products - go figure. Obviously the wanabes sitting in their underwear have less intention of terrorising anyone than those who dicatate the external links on a wikki page. Scotsmist 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A wiki page should cover the history to. How many of these external links can say they have been around since vbulletin v1.x ? vbPortal has been a small part of vbulletin's history. vbAdvanced may be free but the site sells vbA Links and once sold a gallery script. I suggest that all links are removed until this is resolved.

Vandalizing the article by adding links that are not wanted in the article again and again - is a bit of an elitest nerd attitude to take and unless you own the whole wiki site and have the god given right to speak for this site with regards to what is and isn't wanted by the wiki users then remove all of the links except vbulletin.com until its resolved or its going to get worse before its gets better. Once the page is unlocked it will only start over again. Will you will have something arrogant to say about vbportal having an own wikki page too. Scotsmist 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

are you talking to me Scott ? I'll assume no, since I wasn't speaking to you.. One thing I see that you said the wiki is for the history of vB, the links that are up now, don't show this in any way.. My site should be shown just as much as Joeys site.. This is my only argument,, if you remove my site, you should remove his.. Both sites are fairly new ( less then 2 years up )

IMO, the only links that should be showing by your current theory are vb.org and vb.com.. no others..! but if you let one vb fan site, then you must let them all, and don't pick your ranking by some irrelevant measuring system that hasn't even been working correct for some time ( google )..--Brandon Sheley 15:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand Wikipedia policy, I have told you time and time again to please read WP:NOT and WP:EL. Wikipedia is NOT a link repository, and no, if we allow one site we must not allow everyone. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what Havoc, You run a F'd up deal here, There is no reason why my site shouldn't be listed other then you have some hard-on for me.. Go ahead ban me or w/e you can do here.. it's obvious that I wont get a fair listing, You are judging this one some jacked up measurement,, how about I go buy 2 more vb sites and merge them.. then I'll pass your "1,000 hits from google".. btw, how much is Joey paying u to be on his side ? ?? if you remove my link, then take them all down but vb.com,, You did this once and joey went and added his link again,, how is his actions not vandalism ? but mine is... You run a rigged operation here, I don't see how you can sleep at night.. --Brandon Sheley 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Brandon - I even agreed with you that Havok's sytem isnt fair. Stop accusing everyone of being involved in a conspiracy against you. Why dont you DISCUSS things and help RESOLVE the issues, instead of throwing a tantrum and flailing accusations. Its completely uncalled for and disrespectful. Why dont you SUGGEST a policy so we dont have every spammy site linked from here. Try to work WITH people? Scotsmist, your product is just that, a commercial product. Thats the primary part of your site, which would be my objection. I would be happy to trade links with you on vBfaq, but I dont think purely commercial sites should be listed here. Joeychgo 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Brandon, I never said it was fair, I said it was unbiased. Which - believe it or not - Wikipedia is all about. I don't care who you are or what you own, how many hits you get, or anything like that, I care about following policy on external links, which by WP:NOT is pretty clear; Wikipedia is not a link repository. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey thanks for banning me you flamer ! I don't care about this link, it's very obvious that I don't itch your back like Joey does Havok !. Why don't you pick the sites by google ranking for "vBulletin" ?? it makes just about as much sense way you judge now.. What happen my link was up there just fine for about a month, then all of a sudden it became to many, and mine was picked to remove ? Ya, seems fair, reminds me of something a short little mustache wearing guy use to do to the jews.. Who do I go to report you Havok ? You have no clue what your doing. - Brandon ( I'd do the sig button, but apparently I'm special )

There's no good reason that vBulletin community resources shouldn't be available for people searching for them. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be a resource for people using it, not someplace where people like Havoc can pretend to be God and show off how many e-inches of editing power he has. If I search for vBulletin on google and come here, I want to know where else I can go to learn about stuff for vBulletin. External Links should provide links to useful pages that have information people are going to want. Havoc, you should stay off this page and go pretend to be important elsewhere until you can learn to stop favoring your friends links while denying everyone else. Motivez 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an obvious conflict of interest here, Havoc. I know it. You know it. Anyone who's spent any amount of time reading this talk page knows it. It's sickening. You DO NOT OWN Wikipedia, OR this specific entry.. so stop acting like you do. I'm personally in favor of reporting you to higher ups because your constant editing is blatantly bias and unfairly promoting friends and aquaintences.

Havoc, if you want actual consensus, perhaps you should stop allowing double standards while the debate is ongoing? You look petty, vindictive, and pathetic by allowing certain individuals to continue adding their pages and then coming here and making up random and ridiculous standards about google's indexed pages. That type of idiocy and bias doesn't help solve anything, it merely exacerbates the issue. You are not fair, and neither are your inane policies. I'm going to officially request mediation if you aren't capable of putting aside your ego to work on solving the issue in a way that is fair to everyone. Motivez 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Go right ahead, I have done nothing wrong here. Request mediation, report me do what you feel you must. I'm not allowing double standards, I'm reverting to a previous version of the section which all editors agreed on (read almost at the top of the page). Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course you have, you've let your idiotic arrogance get in the way of fair policy. You allow your friends to add their links here, while denying other legitimate vBulletin resources to be added because of a personal grudge. You need to grow up and get a life. It's idiots like you that ruin the usefulness of this site.. Motivez 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Just to clarify, I know non of you, I don't care about any of you. If you read higher up on the page, we had this discussion before. Joeychgo was the last person to edit the external links section, and from what I can see he changed it back to what it was after our last debacle with the EL section of this article. Where actual consensus was made as to which links to keep etc. I'm not a god on WP, and I don't own it, I follow policy, which you people clearly do not. First rule of EL is to NEVER add your own link, and NEVER add your link to draw more people to your site. From what I can read from all your responses above, it's all you care about. I reported you for WP:3RR because you broke that cardinal rule. Feel free to start a straw poll and get consensus as to which links to add. As long as consensus is meet on adding your link, I don't care if it's there. I only remove it because you blatantly vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia to get your link up. Throwing around personal attacks against me because I'm the only person following Wikipedia policy really shows the character of your person. And why don't you listen when you are warned for breaking the rules? You are not above them. If this continues I'm going to ask for mediation, and I will continue to report your rule breaking like I would any other editor on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You tell me what I have to do to get vBulletin Setup added ? and I don't want it just for members or visits.. I never said that.. I want the link placed because the whole site is aimed at helping vbulletin admins optimize their site.. My main thread with the most views are tips and techniques on optimizing vBulletin for SEO.

how do I make a poll or w.e to get my link placed ? I don't know wiki at all, I was just happy i found out how to do the sig stamp thing, and now I'm banned for a day so I can't do that.. -Brandon

WP:STRAW. Just remember to include all the links already in the list. Maybe we can get some removed and new ones added. I also think the list should not comprise of more then 5 links + the 2 official links. As we don't want to break WP:NOT. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

what gets me is that the list was fine for weeks, with my link added.. then all of a sudden, there are "to many links" and mine was removed. :( -Brandon

So, what do I have to do get vBulletin Setup listed ? what is this, you check it 10 times a day when I add my own link, but when I ask a question it goes un answered for days ? Guess I'll just add it again to get your attention.- Brandon

Didn't I just tell you? Read WP:STRAW and make a poll where people can vote for which external links to keep/add/delete. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So other sites can get listed without this Poll but mine I have to set a poll up ? seems a little one sided don't you think ? -Brandon btw, that link doesn't help at all, just says that polls are evil... where is the poll that Joey had to post to get listed ? You can't tell one person to do things one way, but let somoene else slide on by,,

Please add my site as you've proven there is no reason why it shouldn't be listed.. Hell search google for "vbulletin" my site is result #6 past vb.com and vb.org.. so why shouldn't my site be listed as it's obvious that it's a vbulletin help site..

Thanks -Brandon

It's pretty gay that you remove my link within an hr of me placing it, but I can ask a question and it never gets answered. Sorry I'm not the Wiki geek that you are, I don't know my way around.. I looked at the poll page and I didn't see how or where to make this poll,, do I make in right here ? if so,

should vBulletin Setup be listed on the vB page ? if you have never seen it b4, just search "vBulletin" on google and you'll see it. ( yes / no )

is this what needs to be done ? Thanks for the help -Brandon

again my question goes un noticed.. if I added my site, I bet you would answer in a matter of seconds, if I knew who to report your crooked actions to, I would - Brandon

Oppose I don't think your site should be added, seeing as you have purposely vandalized this article just to get your link up there. You have even gone so long as to use sock puppets. And stated on several occasions that you will be adding your link regardless of any outcome and policy in regards to Wikipedia policy and consensus. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

what do sock puppits have to do with anything ? You know what, I don't care, I'm just trying to help out the vb owners, but obviously you have some other motive behind this. You would think the vb wiki would want sites in that help ? guess not.. Tell me, how much did you get paid to be an ass ? -Brandon The only ppl that are going to say anything are you and dumbass joey and we already know how you guys feel. I'm not going to go rally some ppl to say, yes add vbsetup. I simply don't have the time.. I'll rely on admins searching with google to find the help they are after, they sure wont get it if you stay in change havok. - Brandon

ah, just read what you sock puppits says. Dude your so full of it !!! the only time I haven't been signing in under brandon sheley is when you banned me.. and all the other times I've posted with a "-Brandon" after it. I have Never posted as another username ! Yet another lie that you have about me,, whats 200$ get me ? am I your best man now ?? man your lame.. -BRANDON !! ( don't want u thinking I'm "sock puppiting" again )

oh and obviously I wont be adding it unless you stop removing it. so your answer breaks done as 1. he added his site without asking, Look up ^^there joey did the same with vbw and was asking why it was being removed, yet he now has his site up ?? and 2.. this is something you made up ? I never have done this. and 3. This again was pulled from the first remark you made and obviously I can't keep adding it.. So actually you don't even have grounds for your decision..lol imagine that :))-BS

I think we are done here. But, just for your information, please use ~~~~ after all your posts, that way the signature is tagged with a date and time as well. Also, I gave you my honest opinion on what you asked and you start being highly uncivil towards me just because I do not see it your way. The difference between you and me is: I'm following policy, you are not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

why's this over ? because you say it is ???? ya, your the king aren't you and if you call making up a bogus ranking system to place a link policy and saying I'm doing something that I'm not, a policy then you sir. The you need to pull your head out, because you don't have a clue what your doing here.. and I can't log in to place my real sig,, remember YOU BANNED ME!... Just leave mu listing, you said yourself that 5 links plus the pfficial ones is fine.. It's obvious that you and Joey are the only 2 who don't want my link place.. Next time you think of a bogus ranking system, just search google for vBulletin... Thanks - Brandon

Please show me where I said that I didnt want your link posted - I never made such a vote. --- Ultimately Brandon, you've made your own bed. You refuse to follow procedure and policy. You consistantly abuse others and make accusations which are baseless and unfounded. Your comments are against wiki policy. Havok tries only to bring order to this page and you constantly undermine him and insult him. Your attitude is completely unacceptable and my vote would be to have you banned from wiki for your actions. Clearly your 1 day ban didnt have an effect on you or your behavior. Joeychgo 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Joey you did that same thing, how about you and havok both get off my nuts ;) You can see where you're link was removed and you added it anything up top ^ and It's very obvous that you don't want my link here, and isn't ironic how you always place your link right after the .org,, like your site is that good :)) I know this has made me look bad but I don't really care.. Everyone knows about how shady Joey, and the members on your site just haven't found a better site.. If I spent as much as you did on yahoo, ask, and good I would pass you in whatever monkeyfuck rating system that havok wants to use a heart beat. -Brandon

I can only agree that people are pissed off because of the blatant attempt at ownership of the external links on a wiki page - despite what is and isn't policy. I could look up dozens of pages here right now that are have external links on them similar in intent and content to those that have been deleted from this page and for the very reasons stated. A commerical site is not a reason to not be included in external links. It could be argued that all of these sites # vBulletin FAQ: How-To Tutorials and Forum for vBulletin Forum Owners, # vB Hackers: Hacks and Modifications, # vBadvanced: Free vBulletin Portal / Homepage addon, # vBulletin Modder: vBulletin Webmaster Help are not in the interest of vbulletin. jelsoft setup vbulletin.org to discuss addons, hacks, faqs, styles, programming, anything else you can care to mention for vbulletin. The reason that vbportal was not on vbulletin.org for long is due to the amount of support it was taking. It needed more than just a thread and most of you here who have been around as long as vbportal will remember this well, since it was a used on many of your sites for long enough. That's not the point, vbportal is an add-on product for vbbulletin. Links that offer additional features or functionality or in anyway alter vbulletin that other users may wish to know about should be included in a wiki page's external links. That's nothing to do with being free or commercial - vbadvanced sell commercial products right there on their home page for example - the point is sites like vbportal, vbseo, vbadvanced, vbindex, mkportal, photopost even, the joomla link for integration etc. all the stuff that is external to vbulletin but is also integral and needs vbulletin to work but is too big to be on vbulleton.org. Sites that offer hacks and modifications for example are not specific vbulletin external links, they are sites that offer content already catered for at vbulletin.org and in affect are just links that you would find in a link repository. I am starting to repeat myself here, but its as so much as to say that phpportals.com has as much right to be in the external links as any other link there aside from vbulletin's own two links. If there is going to be any more arguing about this then it must be raised to another level and those of you who are familiar enough about how wiki works (havok, joey ?) could do this on everyone else's behalf then once the links are all voted, whatever, and all participants informed when to vote and the result of the vote should then be added and the page locked down for editing. It would be very useful if the external links section could be locked down while the article can be left. If it gets too many links, do what was suggested before and add another wiki page that is not a list of links but paragraphs about all the different sites. If that page gets too big then more pages for different site types with paragraphs for each site and so on. What's the difference if one was to add a whole wiki page or just a little link at the foot of a page whose product is needed and extended on. vbportal doesn't work without vbulletin. Is this a possibilty ? Would someone raise this up to the next level of person to mediate this. If there are no replies in a couple of days time I will add phpportals.com back at the end of the external links. I am not trying to be a feckwit, though it doesn't matter if I am because its not about getting your site listed on a wiki page about vbulletin, its about knowledge Scotsmist 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Scotsmist, I agree with everything you said and hope something can be done about this. I obviously don't know anything about the wiki other then how to get banned. vbportal does have just as much right to be listed at vba is, as well as many other site. -Brandon


Scotsmist, I have disagree. My only reason is simple. Your site is designed to sell a product, thats it. That is my only objection. How do we decide your paid hack is acceptable and vbgeek's or vBSEO's isnt? Or a paid skin site. We could have 50 more links tomorrow, all people advertising their products. Reversing that policy would only make the issues worse. I have said before. I have no issue with non commercial sites being listed. Brandon has just been a problem from the get go, threatening other people, making unfounded accusations, removing other links to place his own, etc etc. He works against himself and basically seems as if he could care less about the wiki page, only about his own link. I see sites such as vbhackers, vbfaq, vbmodder and others to be resources for the vBulletin user as they provide help and information on how to do things. In your case Scotsmist, I dont think the commercial sites should be listed, but as I emailed you, I would be happy to trade links on vbfaq. Just my .02 Joeychgo 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL@ I've threated ppl,, yeah OK JOEY ! I've never threated anyone or removed any links. What else "have I done" oh king of spam Joey ?? see this is why your worthless Joey, you act like your the man when really, you've just boughten you place on this site.. I can get my "google ranking" up and Havok would place me on the list too if I wanted to spend a few hundred on advertising.. That is the Only ! reason your site is listed Joey, and no other.. Next time please wash your mouth out, because all I see is Sh*t coming out of it. Sure. go ahead and tell some more lies about me guys,, how about talking about the spam joey sends out to other boards trying to get new staff ?? guess anything is fair when you pay enough huh.... -Brandon

I was done but..

I think this needs to be done. I'm going to report you yet again Brandon; If you want to know why I'm doing this I'm going to give you a few links that you can check out. You have vandalized the following pages:

Not to talk about the numerous of vandalisms you've done on this article as well as one on my user page. Like I said, I'm going to report you for being a vandal, for your uncivil tone, disregard to Wikipedia policy and your sock puppetry. Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reported it here. Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

dude seriously,, you need to get over your self.. yes, I added those links, so now your not only in charge of the vb page but all wiki ? You really have some free time ? as for "vandalizing" your page, its the only way I can contact you ! Sorry, I'm not a wiki wiz like yourself. You really have no foundation to even threaten to ban me, you've already banned me actually, I haven't logged in since you banned me, so actually what are you banning me from next ? the Internet ?? Go ahead report me from being a "vandal" maybe I'll talk to someone with some common sense.. -Brandon ps. Please try to get your facts straight.. I've never even seen this page "Dual-layer_recording" yet another fabrication of the wiki world is it ? -Bs

Then I would suggest you go to the link I posted above and state your case if you feel like it. I only see the facts in front of me. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

vbPortal

I understand that categorising vbPortal as a commercial site and just that, could be a valid reason for excluding it from the external links. Consider this though. vbPortal is an addon for vbulletin. Wiki is an encyclopedia. vbPortal only works with vBulletin, it needs vBulletin to function. Sites that are already there - vBulletin FAQ, vB Hackers and vBulletin Modder all offer the same content as the two main vBulletin sites do. These links are in competition with the vBulletin istes for traffic. vbAdvanced offers an addon. It offers something that a user may be interested to know about. Wiki does not say that external links can not be to a commercial product. If I looked hard enough would I find vBulletin listed in any other wiki page's external links ? joey - I am not wanting to 'share' links, havok - I am not a wannabe nor sitting in my underwear, vbPortal has been everyting for 5 years. It is not a product that is offered by vBulletin. It extends vBulletin in the way that vbAdvanced does and then adds much much more. Iit is an extensive program as large as vBulletin itself that only works with vBulletin. My arguement is that the fact vbPortal is a commercial product is not grounds for not being included in the external links. joey - I never did get an email from you, but a recipricol link isn't as important right now as discussing the reason for excluding a vital piece of information about vBulletin. We will create an own wiki page eventually. We could update this vBulletin page to include a category about vbulletin.org, its origins, its history, the many sites that have been created since and the various products which have emerged to add to vBulletin. That is knowledge and nothing to do with wanting a link to vbPortal. If vbAdvanced is included then a link to all of the other free vBulletin adds should be included too - that would be fair if the reason vbPortal is excluded is because its commercial. MkPortal for example is free and it does not appear. vbIndex is free and it does not appear, so taking the arguement further, why are the other four site links there ? what are there grounds for being included. How are they justified in being there ? Forget they are not commercial becuase there are lots of other non commercial sites except vbadvanced. forget they offer a resource for the vBulletin user because vbulletin.org is there for exactly that and the three other external links are from their competitior's viewpoints, just spam links for the same reason that a site that only sells a product shouldn't be listed as that is spammy. The fact that vbadvanced is listed may be because it offers a portal - okay well so do mkportal and vbindex and they are not commercial either There are more as well. Either they should be included or vbadvanced shouldn't. If vbAdvanced is listed because it is a portal then vbPortal should be listed since it was the first portal and cms. It should be included in the body of the text why vbadvanced and those other sites are listed. Give reasons for listing them. As has been said about listing vbseo or any number joey mentioned like vbhackers, vbfaq, vbmodder then yes they should be listed for the same reason that vbadvanced is listed or any of the other 3 that are listed - these sites and vbportal are a resource for the vBulletin user and should be listed or a link to a page that does. Scotsmist 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck Scott, I'm giving up on this page, it's obvious that a fare understanding will Ever come. It should either be just vb.com and .org or those 2 plus all the other help sites that are established.. The rating system Havok and Joey dreamed up doesn't even hold water, yet if you dare argue with them your "vandalising"..lol screw it, Let joey the spam king win :) -Bs

Disagreeing and arguing with me is all fine. It turns to vandalism when you purposely disrupt the article by adding your link, and when it's reverted by me, or any other editor on Wikipedia, you re-add it. You discussing it here in a civil manner is actually a good thing. I have even asked you to start a straw poll if you disagree with the links. I have no bias towards any links, because if it was up to me, I would have removed all but maybe three of them. So please Brandon, start a poll about it. I have already told you where to go to read up on starting a poll about it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to be civil, but I'm sorry, I don't know how to start a poll :( thanks for the help -Brandon

Two people disagreeing with the external links is surely not enough to contest what is regarded as a resource. It would be easy to vote the links in or vote them out with enough determination but the simple fact (I can only speak for myself) I am here, discussing this link and the only two objecting initially where havok and joey. No one else has joined in the talk or returned to it objecting. No one else is replying to any of the reasons why vbportal should be included or why the other links in particular should be included while others should not based on my reasons above. @havok you say that - if it was up to you all but maybe three of them is fine - and I say so long as that third link is to another wiki resource that the other links can be added, I am okay with that too. If its only joey objecting to my adding vbportal and its purely on the grounds of vbportal being a commercial resource then there is no reason to go to a poll since its 1 for and 1 against since havok has no bias. It would be unruley of me to say that Brendon has also spoken out that vbPortal should be added making it 2 for and 1 against (since we are the only people in the talk and have been for a while) it may prove necessary to ask a higher authority. If brendon was to modify the page and add his link he is accused of vandalising the page. The next person who comes along will likely do the same as I did and brendon did and add a link or edit some part of the page as they see fit. I have to also be honest and say that brandon's link has been on this page for a good while (longer than this discussion I am having that's for sure). I know this from my previous visit. The links remained unchanged for a while. The adding and deleting only started when I included vbportal. Then the page was reverted. I am new to wiki and added the link back. I did this a few times before realising I was maybe doing more than just playing devils advocate, maybe there's something I should know. I found this talk page and have been coming here each day along with brandon to get an arrangement where we can have a link on this page. I am in my corner. Brandon is in his corner. joey in another and havok trying to mediate. Perhaps if we called in a wiki mediator we can resolve the issue, by either removing all the links except vb's to another wiki page or we ask for a the mediator to decide about vbportal based on everything I have said in this chat from the first time I posted in it, not just this last section. Havok can not play mediator and keep removing everyone's link and joey can not do this either. It is as fair for me or anyone to remove those other links and leave vbulletin's and take havok's opinion that only three links. I would then create a new wiki page for useful vbulletin resources and add that as a Other Links. I am serious about adding a vbportal wiki page and if that is the case then I see no reason to add a link to vbulletin on the vbportal wiki page, for the same reasons and more why vbportal should not be included somewhere from either a link on this page or a subset of this page with a larger list or the article could be expanded to mention vbulletin.org popularity an how it created such a large interest in modifying the forums and some of the products that have changed vbulletin. Many of the hacks posted at vbulletin.org have been included in vbulletin over time and the hacking community has played a role in establishing vbulletin as a popular forum. This is all part of the information that should be on the vbulletin page. It is not an advert yet it reads like one in a lot of places and lacks some of the information that is also relevant to vbulletin. I can think of lots of reasons for discussing IPB and phpbb on this page which is why its a link at the bottom to Comparison of Internet forum software so a Comparison of vBulletin resources is something readers might want to know or be inrested in knowing. The various characters that have been on the seen and more about the vbulletin community. The hacks and addons and commercial addons (vbportal is not a hack) add to this community and its because of the community that such hacks even exist. If people did not want to know about these vbulletin resources they would not exist. Sure this page isn't a repository for links, in which case non of the other links have any reason to be there. They have no reference in the body of the text and are only there for one reason which is to tell anyone looking up vbulletin on wiki about those sites and "only" those sites and "no" other sites but those sites. I mentioned that I knew brandon or someone kept changing links and that someone has been accused of vandalism, but by that same token, reverting the page back is also an act of vandalism and is also being rude to the person who edited the article in the first place. Rather than just reverting an article because the link added is not one of the "only" links we are discussing leave them or make a subset or another page but don;t hinder the progress of the information that will be available about vbulletin. Joey claims that his site is a vluable resource and so is this wiki page to some people and without the knowledge being hindered it would mean more if it was allowed to grow and be better organised and better sections made up and subsets or a few categories. vbulletin is that interesting that it could take up more space on wiki if it was presented as knowledge and information like an encycopedia. I see no one else here but joey objecting so on that grounds I want to add the link back to vbportal or a vbportal wiki page once it has been added to here on this page somewhere in the links or the article. Its going round in circles and I am not going to take no for an answer when its only joey saying no. it reminds me of the remote control for the tv in prison the way this page is 'owned'. Either add vbportal or I push real hard to have all the other links removed starting on the grounds they have no basis in this page as it stands. they are not mentioned in the page and are only there so visitors are aware of those sites and only those sites and is being done in a way that is neither reasonable, fair or in anyway official other than picking out reasons why the person who edited the page has not done so correctly or by the rules of wiki and in a way to make the person who edits the page look like a trouble maker or vandal.Scotsmist 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is Scotsmist, Wikipedia is not a link repository, so why should this article link to all these places? In my eyes it's to late for mediation, I have tried my best to be as impartial as I can, and Brandon's continued vandalism, uncivil tone, and bad behavior has made me take this to the notice board. Worst case scenario, Brandons IP is blocked from editing Wikipedia any further. I only follow policy, which is more then can be said for Brandon. I have no grudge against you Brandon, but your behavior is disruptive to this article, as most of your edits on Wikipedia has either been you trying to explain that you adding a link is not against policy when clearly it is, or you adding your site to the article. I hope this all gets settled and that we can start editing the article in a normal fashion again by adding information that matters. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My arguement this whole time has been the ranking you use to place the links isn't a good system, The only reason I've been suck a "d*ck" about this is that it seems you let some sites be listed and other not based on what ? it isn't this google ranking, because I know several sites that are larger then the ones listed. -Brandon

My system was reverted, and that's not in use as the list stands now dude... Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What system are you using now to place the links showing then ? -Brandon

From what I understand, they are the same links that everyone agreed on last time we had this discussion. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The last time this discussion was had I was not included, well I am know and would like vbportal added or the other links removed for the same reason that this is not a link repository. Quoting havok - """I only wanted the argument to stop by removing what the argument was about until a better solution came along. Havok""". Havok - you are saying it is information that matters - saying vbAdvanced matters because it is free but vbPortal doesn't matter because it is a commercial product is just not adding up for me. It is looking clearly like brandon has some cause for concern that the external links on this specific wiki page are being dictated. Would either you or Joey raise this to a higher level. I do not want to be accused of vandalism, so wish it to be decided by a higher authority than havok and joey instead. Clearly there is something wrong here.Scotsmist 10:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Here is something about vBulletin on another wiki page that is information that is also similar in nature to the vbPortal and vbAdvanced flaming. There is a lot of history between vbPortal and vBulletin - a lot more than any of the other sites listed here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29. ON the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal vBulletin is listed on the page in the article because it has Drupal integrated with vBulletin. This is the kind of information that will appear on the vbPortal wiki page. I am not just intending on adding a link here to vbPortal I am intending on adding vbPortal to the wiki knowledge base. It has been around for nearly 6 years. The product has a lot of history and I am one of the people best to tell it. Scotsmist 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) To quote Joey - """Wickipedia is NOT a Jelsoft site. Only having "Official" Jelsoft links is inappropriate and not the way Wiki does things. Other related and non spam sites are permissible and appropriate to be listed here. This is a knowlegebase and a resource for users, and listing other websites that have information about vBulletin are entirely appropriate. STOP PLAYING WITH THE EXTERNAL LINKS —Joeychgo""" - vbPortal is not spam and is related, permissable and appropriate to be listed here. Once the other wiki page is up I am adding it unless told by wiki not to. If the link is not suitable under secion 4 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to then there is information that is suitable for inclusion in the article such as the flame war between vbportal and vbadvanced and being the first commercial addon, stuff like that. It would then tie in with vbAdvanced and it too could be removed from the external links (just thinking out loud)Scotsmist 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what I will not add an external link, but I do wish to add vbPortal to the article once the wiki page is posted. FYI - On that same page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to under Advertising and conflicts of interest - joey shouldn't add his own site to the external links, none of us should. Linking to another wiki page in the article though, does not come under any of these rules afaik. Scotsmist 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the linking to own sits further up, which was ignored by everyone. To be honest, can't we just remove all the links and put up a straw poll as to which sites should stay, it worked like a charm on the Wii article. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


The straw poll thing wont work. It might work today - but what about in a month? Not to mention - what stops someone from calling his buddies to come vote for him - Scotsmist - I didnt mean to infer your site is anything but credibile. Ive said it before - Let sites be listed assuming 2 things - they are dedicated to vBulletin and they are non commercial (meaning that their primary focus is not to sell a product or service) - You may have 7-10 links then and the problem is solved. What we dont need is every skin site, photo gallery, hack site, etc. THEN you will see 50 links and pure turmoil. My way, you have a simple policy. Joeychgo 11:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The wiki page about resolving disputes says that polls are not an ideal way to come to a consensus and I am inclined to agree. I understand that we should not post our own links - it would be easy to ask a friend to post it for us, but I like the suggestion wiki makes about creating a web directory category. I am smelling bull shit here. Joey refers to sites that are not spammy and offer a resource yet Joeychgo signed up to phpportals.com and posted links to his pwn sites shortly after joining, the one and only post ever made on the site which was moved by a moderator to the black hole, where it still is, so don't get me started on why I think its clear that joey has a vested interest here to see that the links do not get changed, and other sites very similar to vbwebmaster are not listed (what is it joey's site offers that vbulletin.com or vbulletin.org do not offer?). Also joey, your site breaks rules that not only are you posting your own link but the page you link to is imho under Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising your front page is all made up of banners. vbadvanced sells commercial products right there on their home page and should not get any preferential treatment over vbportal just because one is a commercial product and the other free. I am prepared to not add a link to vbportal in the external links providing all the other sites are removed. I also intend to add a section to the main body of text regarding the Portal War between vbPortal and vbAdvanced which i then intend to link to the VbPortal wiki page which needs a link to start so its not an orphanded page. Havok - if you are officially mediating this page then I agree that this page needs updated with more relevant information but I do not ever see the problem resolving until some other party mediates it once and for all, set one rule for now and always in the future. I can not prevent a vbportal user wondering why there is no link to one of the most controversial vbulletin addon with a very interesting history, ideal for an own wiki page. Scotsmist 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Havok, you said that the current links are the same as the old ones we had, This is incorrect. Will you please allow vbsetup to be listed. It is entirely dedicated to vBulletin and optimize your vB for guest and SEO. When i first looked at this page there were only 2 or 3 links on the vb wiki page, I'm sure if you look at the google cache you will see something different then what you have setup. Why shouldn't a site that is listed on google first page for vBulletin just under this page we're trying to get on ? I said, I'm sorry for how I was acting, but your system doesn't make sense. If we can agree on a better rating system, I'll stop asking for vbsetup to be listed. -Brandon ps. the cache shows my site, maybe it should be listed :-/ - Brandon


Scotsmist, this isnt about ME - Your site does one thing - sells a product. Your site offers NOTHING to a vBulletin user except a chance to buy your product. Thats it. THAT is my only objection to your site being listed. This issue has been discussed and discussed and discussed. By letting your site on, then next thing we will have is 50 skin sites claiming your here so they should be. Then what do we do? Now - I have suggested a policy - Let sites be listed assuming 2 things - they are dedicated to vBulletin and they are non commercial (meaning that their primary focus is not to sell a product or service) - please explain to me the problem with what I have suggested and suggest alternatives. In other words, be part of the solution instead of just complaining. Joeychgo 11:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as the links section doesn't get bigger then it is now. To be totally honest, there should be one site for each instance of thing, why should we list several sites that deal with exactly the same thing? Wikipedia was not created to be fair, but informative. And Wikipedia is still not a link repository. I'm for adding sites that add to the article, not because it's unfair not to include them etc. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So, is it okay to add vBulletinSetup back to the list like it was before ppl started removing my link ? It is about optimizing vBulletin, that is it's main focus.. None of the others sites will claim that.. -Brandon

Whether a site is commercial or not has no bearing on the external links or any links included in the article, this is a red herring and one joey is throwing around in a vain attempt to prevent all links being removed including his. Either we come to an agreement and add vbportal which is a CMS and not a front page portal like vbAdvanced (hence a different instance) and its commercial unlike vbAdvanced (hence a different instance again) or else we create a web directory category. If no agreement can be reached then all of the links should be removed, this is not a first come first served - its a repository of information for goodness sake, stop being so possesive of a wiki page - either resolve this or get someone in that can. I do not just intend adding vbportal to the external links I also intend adding a small section to the actual article, but for concerns about being accused of vandalism or coming back an hour later to edit the text and finding it reverted again. Who in this discussion actually has the given right to say what can and can not be added. This page is not the ownership of anyone here, so if we can not agree, someone else should. I am going to add a section about Portal wars. If I add this and it is removed or reverted without discussion first I will not be amused. Scotsmist 14:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SO basically Scotsmist, what your saying is - you want your way, period. Either your link gets added or all of them should be removed. Is that what im reading?? Your site is commercial. Further, I dont see any value to the 'portal wars' section you propose as it has little to do with vBulletin that is helpful to a reader. Beyond that - anything you post on portal wars is likely to be written in your favor. This seems to be all about free advertising for your product as I see it, and THAT is not what wiki is for. My position hasnt changed. I have no problem with non commercial sites that are dedicated to vBulletin being listed. But commercial sites open up a whole can of worms. And the fact that you cant see that, and call it ared herring, tells me you only care about getting your site advertised, and not about the user. Sorry, im not buying your argument Joeychgo 09:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It could also be argued that this is free advertising for your site and the others listed. One value does you site or the others add to this article ? What does vBulletin FAQ: How-To Tutorials and Forum for vBulletin Forum Owners do other than take traffic away from vbulletin.org ? what does vB Hackers: Hacks and Modifications do except take traffic away from vbulletin.org. What does vBulletin Modder: vBulletin Webmaster Help do except take traffic away from both vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org. What does vBulletin Setup: Basic vBulletin Tips, Optimization and support do except take traffic away from official jelsoft sites ? All the links offer alternative sites to vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org. vbseo, vbindex, vbportal, mkportal etc are sites that add to the article just like the portal wars adds to the article - your comment joey "anything you post on portal wars is likely to be written in your favor" suggests that you are not even going to wait and see what I actually write but have already made up your mind that I am a spammer. Since it is now only you objecting Joey - lets make a category page instead and remove all but the official vbulletin links, then none is accused of spam or vandalism. A commercial site is not grounds for being excluded from external wiki links, but posting your own site is considered incorrect joey, and from what i have read from this discussion you are making up your own rules while not following written wiki rules. Scotsmist 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This has all been discussed. Your just rehashing the same thing and im tired of going in circles with you. Joeychgo 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Joey ! Stop removing my link.. Are you scared of the competition, it's pretty easy to just remove the sites that compete with you.. so whats up ? you jump my ass claiming that I removed your link, and now I catch you ? do you get banned also ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VBulletin&diff=94390555&oldid=94390484 -Brandon

Are you guys still at it. How about we remove both your links? That way you have no reason to argue anymore. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Sure - that will solve alot.... Actually, its been peaceful for a few days now. Why not leave well enouh alone. Joeychgo 11:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

you know joey - you are really annoying - you may be tired of going round in circles - but you have not made any valid reason for removing the vbportal link. - the vbportal link has been added - deleted it again joey and I will report you for abuse and vandalism - you have been warned. You are not god, you do not own wilki and this is not your site or page - leave well alone!! Havok - leave the link alone! I have been reasonable and I am taking this to another level after the holidays. So the real probelem - do we delete all the links, add vbportal (and brandon's link) or add a category page I say brandon have someone else add your link and then have a wiki mediator sort it out.? (scotsmist - logged out) 82.40.242.252 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So basiclly what your saying is - your commercial link should be here or nobodys? The 'no commercial links policy' has been in effect for some time. Its nothing new, its nothing against you... Ive explain my reasons for supporting such a policy. We'll have 50 skin site links here if that policy was reversed, then what? You clearly only care about yourself and not the quality of the wiki page. Take it to whatever level you like. Your the one vandalizing the page. Joeychgo 15:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had any issues with the links in so long,, why stir it up agian :( .. I'd say I have to agree with joey or havok, who ever is against vbportal from being listed.. They've said a number of times that your script is a paid script, and that is why it's not listed.. vBa has the free CMS that 1,000's of forums use, and I can understand why it's listed. Sorry bud, but I'm with them. -Brandon

My only exception to listing phpportals, as I have said, is that its a commercial site. If we let one commercial site in, then every skin maker and paid vB service will want to be listed also. Its a big door to open. My opinion has nothing to do with the quality of the site. I have said - I would be happy to exchange links with you scotsmist on vbfaq - but the quality of this page becomes jepordized if we start allowing commercial sites to be listed. Joeychgo 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

who ever keeps trying to sneak vbusers in, Stop ! the site has less then 200 post,, it's still very new.. The links here have been fine for some time, no need to still it up again.. I'd search who's doing it, but frankly, I don't know how.. maybe someone else can look. Just please stop, your going to disrupt this whole thing again, thank you - Brandon

Seriously...

Can people please stop adding their links again and again, it's becoming annoying. Continue and I will remove and keep the external links off this article. I don't care who you are, your reason for adding it, if you are commercial or not, I don't care, stop adding your link! Wikipedia is not an ad service or link repository. I've removed all links except the official links and added a link to DMOZ, feel free to add your link on the DMOZ page, and not this article. Then you can add whichever page you want, and there will be no argumentation against who gets to stay and not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving us an option to add links to dmoz is a bit of a slap in the face,, You all know that it's about impossible to get listed in Dmoz, just to prive my point you see Joey's site vbwebmaster is listed and that site isn't even up still :(

This is a bad move and I hope you reconsider it Havoc. The links page has been fine for like 2 months and now you remove them all ? Bad move IMO, please add our links back.. -Brandon

I replaced the links. Deleting all the links does not help the quality of the page, and linking to DMOZ, which hasnt had an update or accepted a submission in 4 months due to it having server issues, is no answer either. Things are relatively calm here now Havoc Joeychgo 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank Joey, I was trying to add all the links back, but I'm at class so I didn't have a copy of the links that we had been using.. I agree that the dmoz links is a nice idea, but wont solve this problem.. Also I agree that things have been pretty calm, hope it stays this way :) - Brandon

I would contact the DMOZ people, as DMOZ is a valid link to use instead of lots of links in an article WP:EL "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. (See {{tlp|Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page." I see absolutly no point in keeping the ELs when all you people do is bicker, and when you don't, people still keep adding their site to the list. Using DMOZ is fair to everyone, and as such no arguments will happen over who gets to keep their link or not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you lock the editing up like you did b4 Havok ? the links that are up now have been just fine for so long and now it seem out of the blue someone is trying to still it up again ? I think the link that are up ATM are good and Very related to vb. - Brandon

So are the links on DMOZ. Reverting as vandalism now. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

how is it not vandalisim when you change the links ? add the dmoz one if you want.. your the one complaining about to many links ? The dmoz link is pointless, your really not suggestion we "add links it" this is what we see if we even tried to add a link "We apologize for the inconvenience while we resolve technical problems. Please check back in a day or two." so, removing it from the wiki really doesn't matter ! anyways, I wont touch it again, and You can stop vandalizing the links that are present now Havok. - Brandon

Please, like I said, read WP:EL and WP:NOT. Even though I haven't been debating this subject in weeks, I have been looking at the progression, and come to the conclusion that everyone adding their website is 1. Breaking official WP policy, as you NEVER add your own site to the list. 2. You only do so to get more hits on your web page. 3. People will always keep adding their website. As such, I added DMOZ because it's most fair to everyone. If you can't get your site listed on DMOZ, why should it be listed on WP? Please do explain this to me, because I don't understand why that is even a valid argument in this discussion. Instead of fighting and vandalizing this article, why not bug the DMOZ people and get your site listed there? Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Dmoz - to begin with- has been broken for months. No new listings or editing for months. Second, why DMOZ and not a bunch of other directories? The DMOZ link ads NOTHING to the value of this page. And yes, people will all keep adding their website, so your change does nothing to solve anything either. I have said before - let any link to a site dedicated to vBulletin thats not commercial in nature. It has nothing to do with my link or anyone elses. Its about dding value to the reader of this page. I have to disagree with you, your making this too complicated Havok. I have reverted the changes. Joeychgo 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one breaking WP policy.. I'm the only person who is looking at this with an unbiased eye. Like I have stated so many times before, I don't care about your websites, I don't care if you are listed or not, I only care about keeping this article in tune with WP policy. And as it stands now, you people are breaking policy for all the reasons I have stated above. The fun part about everything is that you can't seem to answer any of my questions above, at all. I would rather we use the Yahoo directory, DMOZ or something similar then having the page saturated with external links that all do the same thing, and adds absolutely nothing to the article. Reviews of the software, I can understand, or maybe a link or two for mods, but all the links on the page are redundant and only clutter the external links section. I have already given you reading material in the form of both WP:NOT and WP:EL. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Havok, you say we haven't answered your question ??? what are you talking about ? as for us adding our own links for "hits" that is no where near the truth. I not only will keep adding my site, but the 6 others that have been listed for months with NO PROBLEMS ! You asking us to submit to dmoz when we CAN'T, becuase dmoz isn't even accepting submission. Please stay off your high horse and leave the links how they where. I'm sure your just trying to do the right thing, but telling us to use DMOZ isn't it. -Brandon

Wiki shouldnt rely on an outside directoy link for additional resources. The page isnt saturated with external links - and at this point 'our' sites have been added by others due to reverts and what not. So, at this point, there is no such violation. Many if not most wiki pages have a number of links. I have seen some with 10-20 links. Its about what will benefit the page reader. I have numerous tutorials and articles on vBfaq - Connected right from the homepage -- All designed to assist the new vBulletin Forum owner. Tell me that link doesnt enhance the wiki page and assist the reader of the page? Tell me it doesnt contain content that wiki specifies should be included in the external links section? 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. "

So -what rule is to be followed? We use our judgement - thats what - and weigh all the factors involved. Joeychgo 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Havok is right. This article isn't special. WP:EL applies. Adding links to promote your own site will always get them removed. Repeatedly adding them just wastes everybody's time. 2005 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverted back again - and the link to vBfaq has been here a year - a little late to remove it now and complain about how it was posted. Joeychgo 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's never too late to remove inapproiate links. Repeated spamming will get domains onto the spam blacklist. 2005 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading the history of this chat makes one thing kind of plain to me - you are not going to get this resolved by more discussion between the affected parties. This is not a webmaster forum, where anything goes, and many of these posts have got too personal. There is obviously a major disagreement on the terms of applying the WP policy to this article - Havok has one standpoint, and this is disputed in various forms by joeychgo and Brandon. If you refer to WP:DR it appears that you have gone through steps 1 and 2, and some of 3. The next level in trying to get this resolved, and to take the personalities out of this discuss is to send it to Mediation. From what I see this had not yet been done. WP:RFM is the place to go for you to set up the Mediation. Would the three of you be willing to do this? I really hope that this issue can be resolved. -- Alucard (Dr.) 13:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for this. Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Havok, your digging your heels in and thats fine. You have no real basis at this point to remove the external links. Your only argument is that I added vbfaq and brandon added vb setup, and that we shouldnt add our own liks. For sake of argument, I have agreed to vbsetep and placed it just now when I reverted. He has placed links to vBfaq as well. Se we havent added our own links. Further - removing all links except official vb links and a link to DMOZ (BTW that section of dmoz hasnt been upgraded for over a year) doesnt make any sense. I added vBadvanced and vbhackers - the owners of those sites didnt add them - so why remove them? vBhackers is just like vb.org except it isnt an official vbulletin owned site. So why remove them? Your answer to the problem is a knee jerk and is out of frustration. I understand that. But removing all links is not the answer. Any mediation is meaningless because in a month, someone else will come along and want a link added and we'll start this all over. It is better to agree on a simple policy and stick to it. Removing all links is not acceptable. I know you want the best Havok, but your not really trying to negotiate the problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeychgo (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
Joeychgo, you and others have made the point above that you feel that Havok is being unfair (or unbiased, I can't find the exact wording) in how he or she is handling this page. The mediation is a way to have an unbiased person evaluate what is going on to settle this. This may then be used in the future as a precedent. If what Havok is doing is incorrect, based on the standards of Wikipedia, then the decision will be in favour of the people wanting the links added. Based on what I am seeing here there will be no agreement on a policy between the three of you if you all continue in this manner and the only way to resolve this without continued battling is to have mediation. I strongly encourage you to enter into and support this process, so that this issue can be put to rest. -- Alucard (Dr.) 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This adding of random links with a WP:COI is childish, particularly if when the links are re-added the "no more links" note is still there -- you can't have that both ways. The official sites and the dmoz link are the reccomended solution by the guideliens, whereas adding links you own, or deals to add each other, is out of line. I don't know Vbulletin from VJday, but random link addition that obviously has no consensus is not appropriate. If someone want to make a case why any additional external link is added, they can make a case here and get consensus. Absent that, the external links section sends users to where they can get more information, and that is what it should do. It's not there to promote any one's site. Additionally, even if you want to persist, the forum link plainly violates the external links guideline. Non-official forums are not to be linked to. 2005 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The page continues to be edited and reverted. Really, this is no solution, folks - stop changing the article and get a mediation that may calm things down a bit. Continuing to edit the page is only fuelling the fires, and not resolving anything. -- Alucard (Dr.) 00:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed Controversy

I removed the recently added controversy section. It has no business here as it isnt factual and has no real basis to be in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeychgo 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-added this section as it has everything to do with this article. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So you're going to just start adding any rumors & unfounded tidbits now? Funny, I always thought these articles were supposed to be about factual items, not rumors. Great, just great. Now instead of having Brandon & JoeyChgo having a pissing contest on who can add their same-subject sites to EL they'll be going back & forth on linking to rumors on their sites. 70.110.162.109 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Umm, last I checked the section was sourced. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
And did you read all of those "sources" by any chance? Or just the single original Digg item? Did you take 5 minutes to look into the matter? If you did you would've found out that the license was restored and that the reason for the license revoked in the first place was supposedly nothing to do with the subject matter. Here is one example where you can actually read the responses by Howard over at Pirate Reports on his account of the so called "controversy" and it certainly wasn't an "attack" on a customer. Maybe some totally messed up communications, but nothing more. 151.197.17.248 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I have read everything, I have even written about it. I have been in talks to Jelsoft and Hongfire about the matter as I own a license myself. And if you read the section, there is a quote from Jelsoft stating that they will not and can not remove licenses on personal or moral grounds. But still, Mr. Spinks felt like doing just that to Hongfire. Read the email correspondence between Mr. Spinks and the webmaster of Hongfire in the section of the article. "Messed up communication"? Sure was, but that doesn't make this any less of a controversy that has gotten much response from users of vBulletin and non-users alike. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that all of us here own at least one license and some of use have quite a number of licenses but that is meaningless. And, yes, I also have read all of the various threads, the supposed emails (I say "supposed" because nobody from Jelsoft or Howard Reports has confirmed or denied that those emails were indeed sent from their organizations), and I also have spoken with a couple of Jelsoft employees that I know to get their thoughts. In short, PR got a report, he passed it on to Jelsoft, the license was revoked, the customer appealed, the license was restored, and nothing publicly has been said about it by Jelsoft other than the reason that the complainant cited isn't a reason why a license would be revoked. Until either Jelsoft or PR confirms or denies the chain of events then those emails are just one-sided accusations. So "miscommunication" yes, "attack" no. Going forward, will everybody who gets their license revoked by Jelsoft end up being listed? That could be quite a list. And whether you rename the section "criticism" or "controversy" it still shouldn't be there. 151.197.17.248 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Too specific and not encyclopedic. It doesn't belong. æ² ✆ 2007‑01‑06t18:13z
Remove what you find to specific, but it's still controversy against Jelsoft and vBulletin. We can rename the section criticism if you want. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not encyclopedic - its News -- and its not very good news either. You dont know the facts, just rumor. I have information from certain people inside, and I pretty much know the real story - but what has been reported is somewhat inaccurate. Not to mention, vBulletin has made no official comment. All you have is copies of emails posted by someone whos is disgruntled, hardly a reliable source. Wiki isnt a gossip column, and thats all we really have here. Joeychgo
This is where I disagree. Take a look at other pages like Wii. All of whom have sections about criticism, reception, or something along those lines. That section - which was removed - shows a controversy that was very apparent, and indeed something most licensees of vBulletin should know. If you don't like it, or you find it to negative or whatever is not the point as it is very much a real deal. "somewhat inaccurate", if you talk to Jelsoft, get them to make a official statement about it, and that can be added to the article as well. But as it stands, Mr. Spinks on behalf of Jelsoft did something very stupid. And this should come out in this article, as it was Jelsoft's software that was but in the dirt. You can't censor WP just because you don't like something, this information is sourced and should stay. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if your story was accurate - Jelsoft has said publically their policy is that they dont pull licenses for content they dont like. The Site was back up within a few days and their license restored - there is no controversy here and again, its not encyclopedic. Joeychgo 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Then let's condense the section, to a line or two. Removing it all together would be censorship as it was controversial at one point. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My question is - are you going to report all vBulletin news? Really - at this point the controversy seems to be over. Nobody is talking about it anymore - and it appears to be resolved. Joeychgo 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If something like this where to happen again, yes I would include it in the article. Maybe not as detailed as this ended up being, but a sentence or so. Which I am saying we should at least have, one sentence describing what happened. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If it was the new jelsoft policy - or they were to make a statement such as "Jelsoft will Pull the license of sites with illegal content" or something like that - then I would agree. But in the end - what happened here was partially a miscommunication and partly due to the holidays. Again - I know most of the real story and it really isnt more then a cluster of unintended mistakes over the holiday that caused this. Its not worthy of addition. Take my word for this Havok Joeychgo 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Att. Brandon

Seeing as you don't use your account. Could you please go to the mediation page linked at the top of the page and agree to mediation. If you do not, this will go nowhere. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the 2 links, I'm not sure what I need to do on them ? Please let me know,, thank you for taking things to this step. I would have tried to do the same, but I know Zip about the wiki,, thanks - Brandon

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VBulletin Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

now what do we do ? - Brandon 20:57, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.231.206 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We wait. Getting mediation can take up to 7 days, and it's not even sure that we will get mediated. Havok (T/C/e/c) 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

so if nothing happens, whats that mean for the links ? -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.231.206 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Brandon, if nobody steps up to try to mediate this, then things go to the next step in the mediation process written up at WP:DR, which is an Arbitration request. That will make a decision on what should or should not be done, but it's really a last resort. -- Alucard (Dr.) 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This havoc guy is obviously a complete moron who has nothing to do with the vBulletin community but get's his rocks off pushing people around. Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.232.111 (talk • contribs) 105:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you aren't affiliated with vBulletin doesn't mean you can't edit the article. In fact, not being affiliated would likely result in less of a bias than otherwise. As for your sly remarks, like Havok said, this isn't the time or the place for them. You have the right to your opinion, but this isn't a democracy, anyway. The Mediation Committee will *likely* mediate this article, but we can't tell for sure. My advice, if you don't like the article, or Havok, is to bear and grin it, for all of our sakes. P3net 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I own a license, and I'm a Wikipedian. As for your sly remarks, please read WP:CIVIL. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining Havoc - Brandon ps. havok, I wasn't the one that started talking here. ? I'll just watch

Mediation

Looks like the mediation has been accepted. Go to the Talk Page for the mediation for the next steps. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

link to the "talk" page please ? thank you -Brandon

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/VBulletin -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link Request - The Admin Zone

The Admin Zone is a resource site for forum owners/admins and has thousands of discussions relating to vBulletin, hundreds of articles and interviews including original interviews with 10 or more key vBulletin developers and staff, 31,567 threads, 233,976 posts, 15,729 members, 3,121 "active" members and an Alexa Rating of 6,942. Many of our past and present staff members are also past or present members of the official vBulletin staff, and/or are considered experts in vBulletin by the greater vBulletin Community. Our site is a resource site broadly focused on forums - we are not a vBulletin "fan" site and we have members who use all of the various forum software products available, not just vBulletin. We have numerous discussions relating to comparisons between the various forum software products.TAZ Sandman 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry Sandman - TAZ is not dedicated to vBulletin but a site for admins of various forum software. One thing thwat has been pretty much agreed upon is that any sites listed have to be dedicated to vBulletin Joeychgo 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't see much agreement here, at least not by unbiased parties (i.e. people not having sites they wish listed). I have noted the use of the term "encyclopedic" several times in the discussion here as a major criterion for inclusion. The definition of encyclopedic is "of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject; comprehensive". Why in heavens name would you exclude a resource because it has a broad focus when that resource is the biggest and best source of relevant information for owners and administrators of vBulletin forums (excluding the official sites)? It defies logic to do so in a resource like the Wikipedia, which is itself hugely diverified. Isn't that it's strength? I have looked over the WP:EL and find no basis for the exclusion of the Admin Zone based on it's failure to be "dedicated to vBulletin".

I do not believe it's appropriate for those wanting to have their sites listed as external links to determine which sites should be excluded - that's a clear conflict of interest. Rather, each should give justification why their site should be included and then let unbiased people decide which resources are appropriate for inclusion. I certainly will not partake in the ongoing diatribe regarding this issue. The content of the Admin Zone speaks for itself, and if it is excluded then the loss is to the users of the Wikipedia.TAZ Sandman 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Enough - thanks for your opinion Sandman. Fact still remains, your site is more of a forum webmaster site then a vBulletin site. Joeychgo 08:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Joey on this. As there are websites that are dedicated to vBulletin alone, the article should work around them and not a website that is much more of a resource site for admins in general. Sorry, your site is a no go. Thank you for asking though. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) ok, I may be able to function as a more unbiased editor, since I do not own anything even vaguely to do with vBulletin. In my opinion, the Wikipedia article should like to sites that are about vBulletin and vBulletin ONLY - there was a Wiki article I read on this concept the other day and I have tried to find it to provide a reference, but am failing. Since the site in question in this section is about a broader topic that includes vBulletin, I feel that this would not be a good EL for this article. Since the forum is applicable to many forums, if anywhere, it should be linked from a more generic article. I hope this makes sense. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Modification of Request

The Admin Zone contains original, in-depth interviews with vBulletin developers as well as other key personnel. For example:
Interview with Kier
Interview with Andreas
Interview with Steve Machol
These interviews are directly on point and should be included in the vBulletin article. If the Admin Zone does not qualify as an external link for some reason (which escapes me), the interviews (at least the one with Kier, the project manager/lead developer) should be specifically linked in another section of the article such as the "See Also" section. Surely nobody could have an objection to that.--TAZ Sandman 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me - the consensus is to not list TheAdminZone -- Sorry Sandman - If you like - I would be happy to trade links with you on vbfaq. Joeychgo 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a suggestion: If the interviews contain facts that are relevant to the article itself, and are suitable to be used as a citable reference for a fact, then it would be certainly appropriate to use that article as a citation. See WP:CITE for details. If what was said in the interviews is not something that could be used as a citation, then I would question their use as an External Link. For example, if the articles talk about the history of how the product came to be, that would be excellent information to be included in the article, using the actual interview as the citation. Doing this would enhance the article.
You mention that the reason for the whole site not qualifying as an External Link "escapes you" - I have tried to give the reasons in my post. Is there some part of that that you do not understand? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


An interview with Kier Darby is hardly unique - Interviews with Kier -- Why not use the article on sitepoint or olate.co.uk? Joeychgo 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Joeychgo, you will notice that there were a lot of "if"s in what I wrote, and the link to WP:CITE contains a lot more of them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure I did alucard. I wrote that more for sandman. Joeychgo 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You mention that the reason for the whole site not qualifying as an External Link "escapes you" - I have tried to give the reasons in my post. Is there some part of that that you do not understand? -- Alucard (Dr.)

Not exactly:

In my opinion, the Wikipedia article should like to sites that are about vBulletin and vBulletin ONLY - there was a Wiki article I read on this concept the other day and I have tried to find it to provide a reference, but am failing. Since the site in question in this section is about a broader topic that includes vBulletin, I feel that this would not be a good EL for this article. -- Alucard (Dr.)

I understand that you have a feeling, an opinion, that the Admin Zone is not a good candidate for an EL because it is about a "broader topic" than vBulletin only. But you do not back up that opinion with any reason other than mentioning a single article that you can't locate. I certainly don't see anything in the WP:EL that supports this position.

Let me explain why I think that the Admin Zone is an appropriate EL even though it covers a broader topic. The vast majority of our content is directly applicable to anyone with an interest in vBulletin. We're a perfect reference source for these people. We have tons of related content, and many of our staff are past or present members of the official vBulletin staff and/or are considered experts in vBulletin by the greater vBulletin Community. The other sites petitioning for a place on the EL offer nothing that can't be found on the Official vBulletin sites. A vBulletin user can visit to the Admin Zone and come away with something that the official vBulletin sites do not offer.

There are some sites that are much bigger than the Admin Zone which cover general aspects of webmastering including forums. Examples would be WebMasterWorld, SitePoint, and DigitalPoint. These sites would not make good EL's because most of their content is not directly related to vBulletin users. Their focus is clearly too wide. Ours is not.

While looking through the WP:EL again I noticed something else of significance that I had missed before:

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.

This seems to indicate to me that the non-official vBulletin ONLY sites should be specifically excluded from the External Links.TAZ Sandman 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - you just found the quote I was looking for - AdminSites does not have that symmetrical relationship with this topic, but may with broader topics. So it's not just my opinion, it's in WP:EL. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you are misinterpreting the quoted passage. Clearly, it indicates that alternative sites run by "fans" are not symmetrically related to the topic of the article. It doesn't mention anything about sites with broader focus.

It should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. --WP.EL

The crucial point here is that the Admin Zone does indeed have a symmetrical relationship with vBulletin, as evidenced by the fact that many of our past and present staff members are/were also staff members of the official vBulletin sites, as well as the fact that we have original, in-depth interviews with a dozen official vBulletin personnel. Our site is maintained by two former vBulletin.org administrators. We have thousands of posts written by official vBulletin staff members.TAZ Sandman 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we have a different understanding of what the word "symmetrical" means in this context. Well, you asked for an opinion from someone who wasn't directly connected with the article, and I tried to give that. Sorry you don't like the answer. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL - Symmetrical wasn't my word - it's the word used in the WP:EL so we have to go from there. In this context, I take it to mean that an "unofficial" site should not be used as an external link if it is merely derivative of the official site - i.e. there is no significant interaction or cross-over between them. After all, symmetrical basically means "having corresponding parts". What do you take it to mean then? --TAZ Sandman 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word symmetircal is used. Symmetrical means that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between the page and the topic. If I had a website that listed all the heavy metal bands, including Metallica, and I used to be the roady for Metallica, that does not mean that the Metallica page is the place to link that site. That site could be linked on many pages. So I would see that as a one-to-many relationship, and therefore not listable as an EL. Now, a page on a subject like "Internet forum software" would have a 1-to-1 relationship with your site, and your site could therefore be a candidate for a link there. And only there - links on other pages for other forum software, like phpBB or Invision Power Board would, in my opinion, be just like this one - not symmetrically-relevant. Hope this explains it better. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk

Your interpretation is somewhat narrower that the guidelines provide for - I think you are taking the term symmetrical too literally in the mathematical sense. In this case it speaks more to balance, which is what I mean by cross-over or interaction between the sites. The WP:EL states:

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. --WP:EL

The guidelines clearly state that there must be a two way relationship. They do not say that the relationship must be 1:1, or that the breadth of focus of both sites must be identical. The key issue is the amount of crossover or interaction. In your Metallica example, if the roadie's presence on the site caused some of the actual band members to join and participate to any significant degree, than I believe the site would be an appropriate candidate for an External Link. --TAZ Sandman 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandman - You spell it out right in your meta Tags --

  • Title: Admin Zone Forums - Discussion Forums & Resources for Online Community Administrators
  • Keywords: Admin Zone, forum, forums, vBulletin, IPB. phpBB, seo, search engine optimization, AdSense

And in your mission statement:

The Admin Zone is an online Community of Bulletin Board owners and administrators dedicated to the exchange of ideas and information relating to all aspects of managing Message Board Communities. Our goal is to become the leading resource for every Bulletin Board Administrator seeking the information and advice needed to plan, launch, and manage their online Communities.

Further - Looking at your homepage we have

  • Interview with Brandon Farber - IPS Developer
  • Interview with David Chapman - Founder of Zoints
  • Interview with Chris Graham - Managing Director of ocProducts
  • Interview with Brian Moon - Creator of Phorum
  • Interview with Daniel Murdoch - Creator of MyTopix Personal Message Board
  • Interveiw with Charles Warner - President of Invision Power Services
  • Interview with Dietrich Moerman - UseBB Creator
  • Interview with Joshua Williams - IPS Development Coordinator
  • Interview with Rickard Andersson - PunBB Developer
  • Interview with Rikki Tissier - IPS Forum Administrator and Vectura Developer
  • Interview with David Munn - Ikonboard Team
  • Interview with Corey Chapman - YaBB Project Leader
  • Interview with Zef Hemel - Founder of YaBB
  • Interview with Matt Mecham - Creator of Invision Power Board

There are 5 additional interviews of vBulletin personnel. I dont see how you can even claim that TAZ is 'primarily' about vBulletin. The point being, as Alucard has said and I have said, TAZ does not appear to be an appropriate link for this page. You wouldnt put an auto body shop on the ford page because they paint fords as well as chevys. There are other pages more appropriately suited for TAZ.

Oh, thanks for running and IP banning me.  :) Since I wasnt IP banned a few days ago, I have to assume its due to my opposition of your link being added here. Tis ok. I have AOL and can still read freely. Joeychgo 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree TAZ should not be listed, if it was, you might as well say sitepoint, digital point, adminfusion and the countless other admin forums should be listed just because they might have some vBulletin area.. The wiki page should be for sites aimed directly at vBulletin. Oh, and I wouldn't worry about being banned from sandmans site, he banned me by mistake ( ment to be another member ) and he never even apologized, its just the sorta dictatorship the he runs ;) - Brandon

Just a shot in the dark here, how about we wait with all this till the mediation is done? So TAZ, please don't discuss this any further, at least wait till our mediation is done and some consensus can be meet. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
better yet, how about you, TAZ, add your thoughts to the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/VBulletin debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 January 2007


better yet, how about you, TAZ, add your thoughts to the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/VBulletin debate? --Unsigned comment

Is this permissible under the Wikipedia:Mediation rules? I saw no clear indication either way. If the mediator will allow it, I will be happy to participate in that discussion. --TAZ Sandman 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

you could ask the mediator directly

if TAZ is allowed, then so should adminfusion, they are both the same type of site.. a webmaster site, not a vBulletin site.. - Brandon

and that means so should sitepoint, digitalpoint, and a mass of others. Sandman, there are other wiki pages that are more appropriate for your link. You already have your link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software which seems to be relevant to your site. Consequently, vBfaq doesnt belong there because we are dedicated to on forum software. So vBfaq shouldnt be there for the same reason TAZ shouldnt be listed here. Joeychgo 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


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 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 this issue going back over a year have been 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. --TAZ Sandman 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we please keep this discussion to one place...? Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

it's beyond obvious that taz shouldn't be listed. just because you "did things by the rules" doesn't mean it should even be considered.

we're having a hard enough time getting sites solely devoted to vBulletin listed, and you want to toss in a webmaster site that covers many scripts ? I don't think so.. - Brandon

Guidelines Discussion Reference

Just to add something to the discussion here, the Talk page for WP:EL is trying to resolve an issue with the guidelines that I have brought up - this whole "symmetry" idea. So far, the discussion seems to support my interpretation of the term - you link to sites that are about the subject of the page and not sites about broader things. So sites which are only about vBulletin may be considered for adding (but are not a "sure thing") but that sites that are about a broader subject should not. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

just wondering what we're waiting for now ? - Brandon

alright, I didn't think it would take this long.. by the time things get sorted out, maybe my site will pass the one year mark and will be able to be added :D - Brandon

Brandon, based on comments on the Mediation page, I don't think the issue has been closed yet. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the mediation lost steam, I replaced the external links section. I tried to use a compromise of what was discussed in the mediation page. I listed the new guidelines as follows:

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 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

Joeychgo 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The mediation didn't "lose steam"... agreement could not be reached. The proposal to limit external links to the Official vBulletin sites plus the DMOZ vBulletin related sites link had the same amount of support (and opposition) as the one posted above. I don't see how a participant in the mediation can decide unilaterally as to the outcome of the mediation. That is no process at all - it is a mockery.
Furthermore, joeychgo has violated the guidelines he has improperly implemented by linking to his own site and others without first getting approval by a concensus of editors.
Finally, while I do agree with the inclusion of links to pertinent interviews with key vBulletin personnel, I think that the links themselves should appear in the section of the article that already lists the developers. In addition, this section should be renamed "Key vBulletin Personnel", and Steve Machol (Support Manager) and perhaps others should be listed there as well.The Sandman 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

no way joeychgo - it doesn't work like that. I have been visiting this site every few days. You could have added vbportal (bitch), but then no doubt someone will revert, it, the page will be locked and back to square one. If you had waited for a mediation then this would not go full circle agian, but if course you obviously couldn't wait for someone else to make a decision and had to add links when it was just fine with dmoz and the two official links as I stated last time I posted in the mediation discussion page. Scotsmist 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

reverted back to two official vbulletin links and dmoz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scotsmist (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

mediation requested here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Vbulletin Scotsmist 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back. Leave alone until someone of higher authority decides differently.

  • 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 there. Plenty of time went by without comment from anyone, which is why the mediation was closed. Even before it was closed, we were going in circles. One thing, Pretty much everyone agreed (except you) that paid hack sites such as phportals shouldnt be included. No need to call me names scotsmist. Joeychgo 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There was con consensus reached during the mediation. In my opinion, that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to interpret what was said without further discussion and implement it on the page. The reason that the mediation died wasn't apathy - it was the fact that none of you could agree. The problem I see now is that the edit warring is going to start all over again. I think the next stage that should happen is an WP:RfC to see what sort of comments we can get from a wider range of editors. Hopefully then it won't just be a battle between parties that have a direct stake in what goes on the page. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
agreed with Alucard's above statement and in addition isn't joeychgo now in violation by editing this page again after a mediation was requested, I am sure I read that after mediation is requested no one should then edit the page until an agreement is reached. I filed for mediation again yesterday before joeychgo reverted the links. If its okay for him to keep adding his suggestions and vandalise the page then please lock the page and revert the links to official only and dmoz as it was or I will have no choice but to revert the page back to before joeychgo vandalised it again. I think 24 hours is enough time lock the page and revert back or I will use the revert option myself. The only one seeming to be disagreeing with 2 official links only and dmoz is joeychgo. If the name fits joeychgo then wear it. I have asked you repeatedly to stop spamming one of my personal accounts which I signed up to your site with a long time ago and is banned hence why I can not change the email options, so if the cap fits wear it. Scotsmist 18:53, 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 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will change the article back to the way it was during the mediation. I do not believe that further mediation is going to work, however, since the parties will no be able to agree. I strongly suggest an RfC as the next stage - this will (hopefully) bring in others to the discussion who can perhaps look at things from a more neutral point of view. Is everyone ok with this? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now I am caught up - the mediation was rejected and the mediator recommended WP:3O - that would be better than an RfC - does anyone have any objection? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objections to a resolution. Its not clear though that WP:30 is suited since it says it where two parties object where as there are three objecting unless that isn't important here. Thank you for reverting the page. I think you will find that many people are happy about that, especially those who have not been able to contribute to this page in the past due and have been excluded while seeing other sites included without any clear guideline. The way the external links are now, no one loses out so long as dmoz is up and running and responding there is plenty of useful resources available to any wiki reader wishing to find out more about vbulletin without needing to define a set of rules. Scotsmist 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I followed a link here from WP:3O, and I confess that I'm posting before reading literally all of the backlog. I read a lot of it (much of it twice), and I think I get what's going on. There are a bunch of forum sites that are reasonable to link to as good resources, except that there are so darn many of them. We know that WP:NOT a link repository, so we don't want dozens. Choosing just a few is problematic, because there are people here from the sites themselves who say it's "not fair" if somebody else "gets" to have a link and they don't.

I think the link to dmoz is sufficient. It would be cool to link to a couple of forums, if there were one or two clearly main ones, but it seems there are many sites providing roughly equivalent resources. Thus we get a situation where people compete with each other to use Wikipedia for promotion.

Wikipedia is neither a link repository nor a promotional tool — the fact that this is an encyclopedia is far more important than linking to a forum or two, especially when we can link to dmoz, which is a link repository.

I suggest changing the <!-- comment --> in the External links section to explain that we've decided against adding any links to unofficial sites, and then remove any that are added. If someone persistently re-adds links despite this, and won't cooperate when asked, then we should block them for disruption. Edit warring over external links is just unacceptable.

That's the only way we can be neutral about it. Otherwise we'd have to select some sites and reject others using an arbitrary metric like g-hits, and that seems to invite edit warring. We can exclude them all, while still allowing for discussion of a possible neutral standard for inclusion. If somebody comes up with standard that a consensus can agree to, then we'll implement it, but until then, I think we should stick to a "official links and dmoz only" policy. Anybody who wants any links included therefore has an incentive to work towards consensus.

That's my suggestion. What do others think? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its just penalizing the page reader. I kept trying to work on a simple and not so arbitrary standard, but was argued to death in favor of aritrary standards by these two. Its interesting they never took such an interest until they couldnt get listed. Whatever - do whatever you want.Joeychgo 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What suggestions have you got for non-arbitrary standards? I may have missed that in the backlog. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I had no problem not being listed. I have said for a while now, two official links and dmoz only. This is not a place to promote your own site, I accept that, I accept I should have not posted a link to my own site and I accept that there are too many good resources to list them all (as said by GTBacchus) and dmoz is the very best solution for everyone, now and in the future. There are two really good forums already remember which are vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org that provide everything and could provide more if there weren't so many other sites taking traffic. It still looks like joeychgo is the only one not happy with the current setup of official links only and dmoz. Penalizing the page reader by offering links to dmoz is utter tosh, having a link to dmoz - a link repository is not penalizing anyone. Listing joeychgo's site in the external links but excluding the dozens of other sites is penalizing readers and listing joeychgo's site in addition to dmoz is penalizing the dozen other sites (and the reader who may think joeychgo's site is important - not because its crap but because they could think it has some 'official' capacity, seniority or other given right to be listed). Scotsmist 10:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus -- This was my suggestion some time ago....

  • 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.

If you read the mediation, after this point, only 2 real points of contention were raised, and were raised continously by Scotsmist and/or Sandman. One was - the DMOZ question. The other was a line Sandman wanted:

    • 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.

I objected to this because it is an arbitrary judgement and subject to problems in the future.

If you read through the mediation, you'll see, my suggestion was voted and tied with the votes for only official links. i ahve tried to compromise and work with these two, both of which by the way only had complaints when THEIR sites were refused to be listed. (see the vBulletin talk page)

I tried again to make a compromise... And after the mediation was closed due to being stale, I took one of SANDMAN's suggestions and used that structure (copied and pasted it from the mediation page). Nothing seems to be good enough for these guys. There is no compromise possible it seems. At least not one that these 2 will go along with. Joeychgo 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeychgo, thanks for your detailed answer. I'm not online for much longer this evening, and it'll be a day or so before I have a chance to digest enough of this dispute to reply properly. Please be patient; I'll have more to say soon. A lot of what you say above sounds reasonable, and I'll have some questions, but I still have more backlog to contemplate first. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Understandably. Im here to help if I can. Joeychgo 06:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I object to joeychgo's proposal's on the same grounds as he stated for his objection - it is an arbitrary judgement and subject to problems in the future. We would have to debate what is an active and consistant site. We would have to debate if a site is first and foremost a support/community site to support vB users (for example vbAdvanced was listed by joeychgo earlier, but uses vbA as a loss leader to buy the other products and joeychgo's site looks like an Internet billboard advertising anything and everything that can make commission, then bombards you everywhere). Must consist primarily of free content - LOL - saying something like that on a wiki page about a commercial product is a bit tongue in cheek IMHO. A guideline limit of 4 - No way, that's absurd. The argument will go round and round in circles because there are so many good sites out there.
In addition, if such rules where to be considered then sites that contain more than one advert or banner per page, should also be excluded on the grounds that wiki is not a link repository for spam.
Joeychgo did not try and make a compromise - what he did was saw took the opportunity to edit the page when no one was looking claiming the debate had went stale. All he has done is refuel the talk. As joeychgo says above, there is no possible compromise it seems, at least not that these 2 will go along with LOL (joeychgo is like a broken record). Dmoz is the preferred solution in this instance. It is an ideal solution now and in the future. It puts an end to all of the debates on this page now and in the future. wiki is not a link repository, so there should not be any 'Must be ....' in the "rules" for the external links. However in this case, with vBulletin I think the rules need to say 'Must be ....' and in this case it must be an official vBulletin site. I am not the only one here to suggest Dmoz, it is by far the most popular consensus and is not open to abuse, argument, accusations, jealousy or bias. If other, unofficial sites are so good why do they need listed here, the community already knows al about them, don't they since the are such 'great resources'. In some cases I think you may find the vBulletin community actually make a point of never visiting these sites, which is why so many vBulletin fan sites are on the go. vB is a good indication of a market that has its fans. Other forum software talk pages are not unlike this page, with arguments over which links to include, what should be included in the article's content and forever needing time spent overseeing all the disagreements. We have an opportunity here to set an example that other similar talk pages could follow. Its all about not showing bias, reducing arguments considerably, preventing jealousy and accusations. It can be done if only the official vBulletin sites (vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org) and a Dmoz link are included.Scotsmist 09:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Third opinion, further comments

There are existing guidelines in place to determine the appropriateness of external links (the WP:EL). There is an existing process in place to discuss the appropriateness of the existing guidelines (the WP:EL Talk Page). And there is an existing process in place to discuss the implementation of the WP:EL guidelines for a particular article (the article's Talk Page). In order to function correctly, these guidelines and processes depend on having editors acting in good faith and following the concensus of the majority.

The guidelines proposed by joeychgo are an attempt to bypass the requirements set forth by the WP:EL, which requires that external links be of some significant, demonstrable benefit to the wiki reader above and beyond that offered by the "official links". This has not been demonstrated - in fact any attempt to add quantifiable measures of activity, importance, recognigion by the vBulletin Community, etc. have been dismissed out of hand by joeychgo. He gives one example above, which was a recommendation of the mediator.

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.

Another recommendation of the mediator refused by joeychgo:

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.

Joeychgo wants all such measures of importance stripped away. Not only that, he wants the process of obtaining a concensus of editors to be bypassed as well. His site has been rejected by the majority many times over the past two years (long before I ever got here) and his response has been vandalism and edit warring. He waits for those editors who oppose him to move on, and starts the process over again.

Although overall agreement could not be reached during the mediation, there was agreement 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." Despite this, Joeychgo again took it upon himself to add his site and others to the article without making a request on the article's talk page and getting a positive concensus.

In my opinion, any process that seeks to bypass the WP:EL is doomed to fail. We need to use the guidelines set forth in the WP:EL, and interpret and implement them specifically for the vBulletin article. From now on 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. This was agreed to by all parties during the mediation, and has never been implemented. This simple rule may well serve to resolve our problems. Part of the request should in some way address the requirement that an external link must be an important resource that adds something to the article above and beyond what is available at the "official" sites. If there is a positive concensus then the external link can be added, preferably by someone not affiliated with the site . I further propose that if a site is not approved by the majority, there is a mandatory 6 month waiting period before it can be resubmitted. The Sandman 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

GTBaccus, thank you very much for you outside opinion. I have been following this discussion for a while, now, and I tend to share the feeling that there really isn't going to be a mutually-agreeable compromise, here that satisfies WP's requirements for a page. If (and it's a big "if") a true compromise can be reached at some point in the future, then it can be considered, but otherwise, the "two official links plus DMOZ" state should be what is in the article. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
They dont want a comprimise. Never did. And the page reader loses because of it. Joeychgo 15:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that everybody stop trying to find reasons why a compromise can not be reached, to lay blame, or to question motives. The fact is that no effective compromise could be reached which satisfied all parties, and we need to move on. I feel that whenever a consensus solution can not be reached, then everyone loses. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Its just frustrating. What I posted was SANDMAN's prior suggestion -

Havok had agreed to it then also. Now I get lamblasted. I didnt make the suggestion. But It was sandman's, Havok agreed with it, clearly I felt it was an acceptable compromise by posting it. Now I get attacked. It's BS, im sorry. We will not get unbiased opinions on a long term basis because none of us can be 100% unbiased as most of us are involved with a site or have friends that are involved with a site. I like to provide people with information. Thats what the purpose of wiki is I thought. No, not a link repository, but there are many sites out there that people will find quite useful. This whole matter has really got away from helping the quality of the page and the reader. I tried to use something I thought everyone could live with, and I dont know what else to do. Nobody seems to want to compromise. I personally see problems listing articles and interviews, but I can live with it. However, sandman's suggestion isnt good enough for him either. SO, I ask.... Now what?? Joeychgo 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


This discussion will not get anywhere if you don't get your facts straight. I suggest that you go back over the mediation discussion more carefully - that was never my suggestion - it was Havoc's. I would never have made that suggestion because I believe that if DMOZ links are used then sites appearing there shouldn't be listed again as external links, I don't believe that vB-FAQ or vBHackers offer anything of importance above and beyond what is available on the official sites, and because I don't think that the interviews should be listed as external links at all - they should be linked to the developer's names within the article itself.
The crux of the matter is if you believe that your site is an important resource which offers something to the wiki reader beyond what is offered at the official sites, you should present your reasons for believing so (reasons which satisfy WP:EL guidelines) on the vBulletin Talk Page and then leave it for other editors to decide. The Sandman 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean unbiased editors, like yourself? Why waste my time. Look if you dont want to be reasonable and compromise, thats up to you. Almost every condition you have suggested is either unreasonably hard to achieve or so ambigous that you invite dispute down the line whenever someone wants a link added. Want a reason? vBfaq was listed for a year before you came along, and vBwebmaster (the 2 sites merged) was listed before that. It already WS listed before you and scotsmist came along. Want more reason? 8000 members, dedicated 100% to vBulletin, free skins, free hacks, SEO advice, tutorials and articles, hack reviews - much of what you have on TAZ except it is 100% vBulletin. Joeychgo 04:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is if you believe that your site is an important resource which offers something to the wiki reader beyond what is offered at the official sites - The Sandman

As a fairly new user of vBulletin software, I found vB-FAQ provided a step-by-step guide to optimise, customise and improve on the basic vB installation that comes as standard. Whilst there is an extensive listing of many of these modifications at vb.org, the importance and purpose of carrying out such improvements is not clearly apparent at either of the official sites. I now understand not only what to do, but why I need to do it - something that vb.com and vb.org did not achieve.

Other unofficial support sites might claim the same, but for me it was vB-FAQ that provided the answers and put me on the right track. Ironically, I found many of these other support sites, both commercial and non-commercial, through vB-FAQ.

It seems that many involved in this argument are very experienced in this software. Please take a moment to look at this issue through the eyes of a person who has no such knowledge.196.207.39.252 08:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)vbuser

There is NO WAY TAz should be listed Anywhere in the wiki for vBulletin.. by the time this ever gets approved, vBulletinSetup will hit it's one year make and should be listed as that was the only thing holding it back.

The sandman is just trying to push his weight around to get what he wants.. Just because he has interviews with vB dev's doesn't mean ANYTHING.. I can easily start up a BLOG and post interviews with vBulletin dev's.. does that mean my blog should be listed ?? No..

we were all in agreement with what sites should be listed, then sandman came in here and messed it all up. IMO, taz is making the vb wiki a JOKE ! -Brandon

'We' were all in agreement you say, is that the royal we ? Sandman messed it all up, LOL, grow up. There are simply far too many sites wanting to be listed for there ever to be a consensus. DMoz is the correct solution to this problem and since DMoz was added, there are no disagreements about which site should and shouldn't be added. The only argument now is those wanting there site listed on the article page. DMoz is the ideal solution here because it ends all the arguments now and in the future. Scotsmist 14:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny, most other pages dont have this problem, why cant we solve it? Joeychgo 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
what other pages are you referring to ? Scotsmist 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles with no controversy over the External links section. This one is different in the fact that there are scores of websites with roughly equal claim to being listed at the bottom of the article. With most topics, that's just not the case. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the argument as to why external links should be to sites dedicated to vB. I'm struggling to understand Sandman's and Scotsmist's interest in stopping an external link to an 'unofficial' vB support site. Given the apparent history in this discussion page, I can't help but wonder if the motive is more closely related to the exclusion of non-vB-dedicated sites as opposed to being genuinely interested in making the vB page as useful as possible to the people who are going to use it - people looking for information on vBulletin!
A link to a suitable 'unofficial' vB support site is going to be far more informative than a link to DMoz.196.207.39.247 12:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)vbuser
The discussion indicates that there are simply far too many vB fan sites and that it will always be a problem here unlike other pages, which is why I asked joeychgo specifically what pages, since my reading indicates too that pages with links to 'fan sites' simply do not have that many 1000's of potential fan sites wanting included which is why DMoz is the best solution, not because of an interest in stopping an external link to an 'unofficial' vB support site, but to stopping the same thing happening over and over on this one wiki page. Sandman and I are not the first to point this out. Havok and others have said so clearly in the past. DMoz is a perfect solution here. There is no reason to include fan sites etc, when a DMoz link is provided. If people are interested in vB then they would also be interested in other 'fan' sites, unofficial support sites, all the skin sites and commercial product sites, as well as the free sites offering hacks or addons but there simply is not enough room to do the section justice, to stop disputes and valuable time wasting over an issue which in theory will always be in debate. Maybe today this debate could quiten, but tomorrow another fan site, product (free or paid), skin site, 'unofficial' support site or other vB related domain is going to join in. Regardless of what 'rules' are set today, they will not be applicable tomorrow as has been clearly seen in this talk page if you take the time to read it in its entirety.Scotsmist 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
May I just ask vbuser, who you are ? You said you came to the article to find out more about vB yet you are now in discussion on a talk page about a product you say your only interest in was to purchase. Without sounding paranoid or suspicious, are you a friend of joeychgo per chance. He is the only person I know with the time on their hands, motive and past example to do such a thing. Your words may hold more credibility if you explain who you are, where you hang out and friends who know you. You have the advantage of knowing who we are. If we know who you are then my own personal doubts as to your being here would then be uncalled for. At the moment, I have absolutely no idea who you are. You could even be joeychgo with another IP address LOL.Scotsmist 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
May I just ask vbuser, who you are ? My points are my only credibility. Perhaps that is the problem. What is best for the page is being subverted by who the players are.
You said you came to the article to find out more about vB... No. I suggested that this is the profile for whom the page should be written. I genuinely believe that the link to DMoz, with all DMoz's problems, is not the total solution.
The REAL problem is that all the protaganists here are too close to the subject and basically have a vested interest. I understand the problem - the trick is going to be to find the right solution based on a 'neutral ground' indicator. I see that's been tried already, but there must be something that would work. I'm going to keep my eyes open for something appropriate to suggest...196.207.37.158 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)vbuser
That was the motive behind asking him what pages he was referring to, because in this case, its very different and I was interested to know what other examples of pages he was referring to that have the same 'talks' as this article's talk page. Other articles that come to mind are also having similar issues with external links. In case you do not want to look over this talk page it says clearly that only links to official vB sites should be posted, and if you post with the argument "some_domain.com is the only forum dedicated to ........" it is to promote your site. Joeychgo was told very early on and repeatedly, not to post his link and continued to argue and add link(s). Over time others have been here and the same thing happens except joeychgo wears havok down and a by-rule is made up whereby only 5 unofficial links are allowed. This ensures that the ones already listed where not removed and no other links could be included. The debate has continued around in circles involving joeychgo insisting on posting his link and having it stay here.Scotsmist 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 196.207... that this isn't an ideal solution - any solution arrived at because the interested parties can not agree to a solution isn't ideal. And I agree that WP users may be not getting what they should. But given the long and painful history of this discussion, there was no other solution that could be arrived at. I agree it's a shame. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So now its all my fault and havok's fault is that it scotsmist? Ive been trying to find a solution to this from the beginning. WHat have YOU done to resolve things? Nothing. Your answer is DMOZ. That is an answer that solves nothing. I have tried everything I know to compromise and make things work here, you and sandman are always in the way. Its important to note that thie mediation started after your link and sandman's were not accepted by me, havok, and others. You argued hard to get your link up and now that you have no way to make that happen, you advocate no links. I have offered solution after solution. Over time, Many people have said the link to vBfaq should be there, so your arguments about my posting the link has no validity. Start helping to find ways to solve the problem instead of hiding in dmoz Joeychgo 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite joeychgo's relentless protestations to the contrary, the timeline speaks for itself. The mediation was requested on or about January 6th and was accepted on or about January 13th as noted on this page. My first entry was on January 23rd, at which time the only external links listed were the official sites plus DMOZ. I had nothing at all to do with that - I didn't even know the article existed until that time. I have never added or removed any link from the vBulletin article. This controversy has apparantly been going on for almost two years now, the great majority of the time without my knowledge. The vandalism and edit warring that joeychgo and others engaged in occured before I was ever here. Since then, joeychgo has resorted to adding his link back to the article despite the fact that the mediation did not result in any resolution, and most recently recruiting an anonymous "fairly new vBulletin user" from vB-faq to praise his site. Even if you are willing to overlook the fact that this "vbuser" has chosen to hide his identity, does not appear to be listed as a member of vB-faq, and has no history I can find on the wikipedia (and does quite well making his entries for a total newbie), it is inappropriate to have people affiliated with a site campaign in this manner. Good lord - do you have any idea how many people I could get over here to participate if I thought it was acceptable and productive? I haven't recruited a single person to take up this discussion on my behalf and I wouldn't do so because IMO it would undermine my position, as it has joeychgo's. The Sandman 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice accusation. Dunno where you see any evidence. Once again Sandman, lets not resove anything, lets play these games some more.... Its no wonder why the matter hasnt been resolved yet. Your timeline point is interesting. Lets look at that. You came onto Wiki January 14th, and listed your link on a number of wiki pages. So much for your credibility. Your only goal appears to be to get yourself linked and keep competitors from being linked. Scotsmist - same deal, except November 06 and only concerned with the vBulletin page. SO please. Dont anyone lecture me abot credibility. At least ive been around 2 years. You two appear to just want what you want and could care less about anything else. Your bias is clear and obvious. At least I have made contributions to the page, discussed other things about the page then just the external links, added links besides my own, etc. Joeychgo

My credibility is intact - sure, I added a link to the phpBB and IPB articles and quickly learned how things work around here. It's a pity you still haven't learned it. I didn't add the links a second time and I certainly didn't vandalize any pages or engage in edit wars as you have done. But that has nothing to do with the vBulletin article - I've never added or removed any links from this article. It's your credibility you need to worry about - you just can't get it straight. Here's 3 examples: You said that the mediation started after my link was not accepted, but the fact is the mediation was already in progress before I ever arrived here. When you vandalized the article after the failed mediation you claimed several times that you were following a recommendation that I had made, but that was obviously not the case either. Finally, you've claimed several times that all of the recommendations that you consider "too difficult to achieve" which were put forward during the mediation were from me, when the majority of them came from the mediator. I don't know why you can't get these things right, since they're preserved in writing on this very page as well as the mediation page - either you're not paying attention, can't remember simple facts, or are trying to manipulate the discussion. The Sandman 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well forgive me for confusing what you do and dont do. I also gave you credit for something at one poiunt when it wasnt you. So it does work both ways. There has been quite a bit said by a number of people. Forgive me for any mistakes I have made. I kinow your perfect and all, some of us are human. Now, this is getting us nowhere. Joeychgo 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You throw out a sarcastic remark referring that sandman is perfect and then say this is getting us no where, implying it should stop. I have to agree with what sandman said above and I too knew nothing about wiki before coming to this page. Now I see how it works its clear that joeychgo has been arguing to have his link on the page for a long time. It is a shame, but there is no clear solution here. I may be repeating myself, but some things do need repeating. I am not the bad guy here. We all know who I am, who joeychgo is, who sandman and Alucard are, but there is no evidence who this vbuser 196.207. is or why they think that we would believe they are a passer by. I have been here for a few months now and it is obvious to me that the only reason joeychgo had his site listed and that successfully argued it to stay for two years is down to the fact that he has been doing it so long that time and patience have payed off for him until the last mediation. Two years joeychgo has been here and the only time he has shut up is when his site was listed on the external links and no one else tried to change add to the external links. I do not know what he has actually added to the article itself, and I do not have the ability to find that out, so unless he says different I do not see this ever resolving as long a joeychgo is only interested in the external links section. I wanted to add to the article content about the portal wars and start an own wiki page and sandman wanted to add to the article's page and we both agree that the external links section is not the place for self promotion. joeychgo on the other hand has been disagreeing with this for two years. He is still here arguing two years later. There are other sites, too many to list for sure so there has to be some agreement that its only the official vB links and another page (at the moment it is dmoz). My initial suggestion when I was confronted after adding a link to vbportal, was to create a wiki category so sites could be added to that. The category or categories could then be listed in the external links section which I thought was better than dmoz since it stayed on the wiki site and there could still be a way to control the number of links since the number of categories would be far outweighed by the number of fan sites, addon sites (free or commercial), support sites (amateur or professional) and style sites out there. The article's link section might then be easier to manage and the categories page can be managed as appropriate, but the response that wiki is not a link repository was valid and hence dmoz was added and the other links removed.Scotsmist 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Taz has no reason to be listed, that site isn't even about vbulletin.. at least scott's Joey's and my site are centered around vbulletin.. if taz where to get listed and my or joeys, or even vbportal wasn't listed, then this really does make the wiki look like a joke. - Brandon

Yeah Yeah Yeah -- its all about me right? Its all because I want my link there. Thats why we are having all the problems. What BS. vBportal doesnt belong because its a commercial site, and the portal wars were years ago an no longer relevant to this page. TAZ covers all forms of forum software and is too broad to be listed. That was my argument. It had nothing to do with my site being linked. Once I made those arguments, you two started on this no links kick. Why? I believe its because yours cant be included. SO attack the guy who made the arguments.
Ill say it again - lets get past this personal crap and move on. Joeychgo 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeychgo and Brandon just don't get it. Don't you guys realize that the Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a place to put your links just because you want to? Only important resources are supposed to be added to the external links section. Reasons like "my site is dedicated to vBulletin" and "my site has been around for 1 year" don't even come close to fulfilling the WP:EL guidelines.

The arguments that joeychgo makes are invalid. He says that I'm behind the "no links kick", and that's wrong on 2 counts - first, because when I arrived here the external links were already limited to the official sites plus DMOZ (and locked to prevent further vandalism and edit warring) - and second, because I did not campaign for this limitation during the mediation (I supported and expanded upon the mediator's recommendations regarding objective measures of a site's importance).

Furthermore, despite joeychgo's (and Brandon's) opinions to the contrary, it is appropriate to link to a site with a broad focus if the link is directed to a specific section of the site which deals with the article. This has been discussed at length on the WP:EL Talk page and there is a strong concensus for it - in fact they go so far as to call it a no-brainer. So the truth is, TAZ is appropriate as an external link if the other WP:EL guidelines are considered to be met. Additionally, the articles and interviews on TAZ are appropriate for direct linking within the article itself. However, after seeing what goes on behind the scenes here, I have no desire to campaign to get my site listed. If someone comes along and chooses to list it as a resource, fine. If not, so be it.

Joeychgo is trying to cococt a set of arbitrary "rules" that allow him to list his site without the necessity of demonstrating its importance or getting a positive concensus from a majority of editors. This is not the way the Wikipedia works - even if we allowed him to do so today, someone would come along tomorrow and remove the link because it does not fulfill the WP:EL and the cycle would start all over again. There's really no way around it - if you want a site listed as an external link, you need to demonstrate that it is an important resource that fulfills WP:EL guidelines to the satisfaction of the majority of editors interested in that particular article. Any scheme that seeks to bypass this requirement is doomed to fail. In the meantime, the official sites plus the DMOZ listing (which lists both joeychgo's and Brandon's sites among others) is a reasonable alternative. The Sandman 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is so arbitraty about 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 editors before adding it. To be eligible for linking, a site:
  • 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 primarily dedicated to vBulletin
  • Similarly, it must consist primarily of free content (content being mods, skins, articles, FAQs, etc) for vB users

This ensures some quality, it ensures the site is relevant to the wiki page, and it means we provide resources for our readers. I dont care if there are 10 links, if they are all good ones. People who read this page are looking for information, and what we cant give them here we should give them links to, its that simple.

Now - start there - tell me whats wrong with this? Joeychgo 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)



What's wrong with it? Several things.

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 editors before adding it.

This is the one thing we (mostly) all agreed on during the mediation. This purpose of this rule would be to ensure than links are added in accordance with at least some of the WP:EL guidelines. I'm curious - since you agreed to this, why didn't you follow it after the mediation ended rather than list your site in the article again.

Must have existed for a minimum of one year and be an active/consistantly updated site

This is arbitrary and meaningless in the context of ensuring that a site is an important resource. What difference does it make if a site has been up for a month, a year, or ten years? What matters is the quality and quantity of the site's content. And what does "active/consistently updated" mean? To me, it means nothing unless quantified and a standard set. You have resisted every attempt to set any meaningful standards that a site must attain to be eligible for listing, probably because your site is not very active, and is not staffed by nor are posts made by either past or present vBulletin staff members or vBulletin experts as recongized by the vBulletin community. That doesn't make it a bad site, per se, but it does make it unsuitable as an encyclopedic resource.

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

The rules are unnecessary because they are covered in the WP:EL. You've only included them because you believe that your site meets these particular guidelines. Perhaps it does, but that doesn't mean you can circumvent all of the other WP:EL guidelines.

Must be primarily dedicated to vBulletin

As I've mentioned several times, this has been discussed at length on the WP:EL Talk Page and it's not necessary for a site to be wholly dedicated to the topic of a particular article - it's only necessary that the site have a specific section dedicated to the topic which meets the other WP:EL guidelines.

This ensures some quality, it ensures the site is relevant to the wiki page, and it means we provide resources for our readers.

"Some" quality? That's quite a qualification - it seems that you do realize that your "rules" require little if any quality. That may be fine for fan sites, or discussion boards, but the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the external links are supposed to be important resources.

I dont care if there are 10 links, if they are all good ones. People who read this page are looking for information, and what we cant give them here we should give them links to, its that simple.

I wouldn't care either, if they were truly notable resources. Those looking for information can find your site and the others via the DMOZ link. Only sites that represent unquestionably important resources should be linked directly from the article. The Sandman 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


As I have said on many occasions - most of your responses are argumentative and/or attacks directed at me and my site. Your bias is clear and obvious. And what is the quality expectation for DMOZ? The vB section was only recently cleaned up by Alucard after about a year of being ignored. I'll give you that the resources are suppose to be important resources - but thats also relevant to the article. What qualifies as important is what we are trying to decide. Well, some of us have anyway. Joeychgo 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said on many occasions - most of your responses are argumentative and/or attacks directed at me and my site. Your bias is clear and obvious.

I was only answering the questions that you asked. We're engaged in a discussion where we disagree on many issues, so I suppose that it's not surprising that you feel like you're being attacked. That's not my intention though.

And what is the quality expectation for DMOZ? The vB section was only recently cleaned up by Alucard after about a year of being ignored.

As of now, the vB section of DMOZ is up to date and appears to be maintained by Alucard. That's really all that matters. As to the "quality expectation" of DMOZ, that's up to the DMOZ editors - clearly they are not as fussy about quality as the Wikipedia is. The beauty of using the DMOZ listing is that by using an "offsite" listing, it allows inclusion of related sites which may not be encyclopedic resources without endorsing them per se and without cluttering up the article with multiple links.

I'll give you that the resources are suppose to be important resources - but thats also relevant to the article. What qualifies as important is what we are trying to decide. Well, some of us have anyway.

An important site, in the encyclopedic sense, would be a site that is mainly based on quality content and is widely recognized by the vBulletin community as an authority site. In my opinion, this means that the content needs to be largely original, with a significant amount written by past or present Jelsoft employees, staff members of the official vBulletin sites, or other vBulletin experts generally recognized by the vBulletin community. Further evidence would include mention in one of the books written about forums in general and vBulletin in particular, a very active membership (at least 1,000 active members), and general acceptance by the vBulletin Community at large as an important resource. The Sandman 21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal feelings about taz has no weight in my statement,, your site isn't aimed at vBulletin, so it shouldn't be added.. plain and simple ;) -Brandon

Well, lets see, now vBfaq has been awarded Board of the Year. I would call that recognized. Joeychgo 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of the 186,119 members of vBulletin.com, your site received a grand total of 24 votes in the two months that the contest was open. Congratulations. Since most if not all of your members are also members of vBulletin.com it is not surprising that you won, since basically all of your members were eligible to vote whereas basically none of the members of the competing forums were eligible to vote. The fact that the only "dedicated to vBulletin" forum in the competition managed so few votes despite the fact that it was held on vBulletin.com is recognition by the vBulletin community of the lack of importance/notability of your site. The Sandman 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

hahaha -- I wanted to see how you would respond. Somehow I knew you would be yourself. Thats ok though. Because its what I expected you to say and it makes my point. Your whole requirement of "recognition of the vBulletin community" is arbitrary and subject to debate. I bet I could list 5 reasons most would consider good enough, but you'll find something with each of them. Your bias is so clear its almost funny.Joeychgo 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "recognition of the vBulletin community", I said "recognition as an authority site by the vBulletin community". Let's see some evidence of that. The Sandman 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't said anything for weeks joeychgo, then you post what you now claim was a statement purely to get a response from sandman. So yeah, yeah, yeah, it does seem to be all about joeychgo. The results of the vote, indicate to me that the most important resource for vBulletin license owners is vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org not one of the many fan sites announcing itself at any opportunity. I read that Madonna (the singer) won Mother Of The Year and Michael Jackson was voted Father Of The Year.Scotsmist 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Joey's argument is a bit weighted, but it does show that there are Many vBulletin users that find his site useful for vBulletin help. ( btw, of the 200k vb users or w/e was quoted, how many go to vb.com much ?? I can't say that I'm an "active" member of that forum. I didn't even know of this board of the year contest, or I would have surely added my site ) This can not be said for taz, as it's for All forums, not singling out vBulletin as vb-faq Does. So whats really holding this up ? The argument that taz should be in the list is just a bogus request. By the time anything is set here, vBSetup will hit the 1 year make and be eligible for the rules I last agree'd to ;) -Brandon

Whats holding this up is that since Scotsmist and Sandman cant get thier links in, they think nobody else should be linked either. They like to make the issue about me and vBfaq, but really, its not much more then spite I believe. Anything you can say brandon, they'll have some BS answer for. In the meantime things will stay as they are I guess. Whats funny, they think im worried about the traffic or something. Ive been page 1 in google for a long long time, and sit right below the listing for this page, so traffic is my least concern. vBfaq is doing fine, almost 9k members in about a year and a half, PR6, Board of the Year, etc. Im not too worried about traffic from here. The shame is, people who come to this page, wont get the resources that can really be helpful to them. Instead, they get a dmoz link. And im not talking about vBDAQ, they find that alreadyJoeychgo 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's pretty much what I've noticed.. Those two are the only ones fighting even tho it's Very clear neither site should be on the vb wiki Page.. I still believe vbsetup should be listed, but I understand if it's to new. vbfaq and vbsetup are both still helping 1000's of vBulletin users, and only vb users for Free.. Neither taz or vbportal can say that.. How can you really argue that point ??..lol Oh well, guess we'll watch this for another month :( - Brandon


is this really going to be a year long question ? 50% of the sites that where trying to get listed b4, aren't even up or active anymore. vBulletin-faq and vBulletinSetup have both been active and growing this whole time. If the question is still should taz be allowed. There is No reason why taz should go, if you are saying because that have "interviews" of vB Devs... Well so you are saying Any site no mater what the content is, as long as they have some interviews from the vb team, then They should be on the wiki page. and vbportal is denied since they are a commercial site.. Again, if you allow them, then vbseo.com, thevbgeek.com and a number of other paid hack sites should be on the wiki.. The only two sites that should be added from the list of sites who are wanting on are, www.vBulletin-Faq.com and www.vBulletinSetup.com -Brandon


I tried a version that included taz's interviews - they didnt like that either. vBportal is a dead issue - no questions it doesnt belong. But the sites ive added before - vbfaq, vbsetup, vbmodder, vbadvanced, vbhackers -- all of those belong in the wiki IMO. I wonder if Sandman and Scotsmist are even paying attention to this anymore Joeychgo 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Joey, whether anyone is paying attention or not, we should be reaching consensus before just adding sites which have been contentious in the past. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with agree'ing to the links but whats the hold up ? It's obvious that vbportal and taz shouldn't be in, that leaves the sites Joey just mentioned.. What are we waiting for now ? I hope one of these months these sites are listed "vbfaq, vbsetup, vbmodder, vbadvanced, vbhackers " regards - Brandon

I tried a version that included taz's interviews - they didnt like that either.

We didn't like the fact that you added your own site and Brandon's immediately after a long mediation where the only thing agreed upon by all parties was not adding any links without first obtaining a concensus.

Regarding the sites proposed for inclusion, the only one worthy of serious consideration is vBAdvanced, which is the only one not included in the DMOZ listing, offers something of value for free which is not available elsewhere (including the official sites), has over 60,000 members and maintains a consistent level of activity. This is a reasonable site to be listed as an external link.

vBHackers, while moderately busy, doesn't offer much beyond what is available at the official sites, especially vBulletin.org. The rest of the sites (vbfaq, vbsetup, vbmodder) are lacking in traffic, resources, and especially recognition by the vBulletin community as authority sites. For these reasons, and since these 4 sites are already listed in the DMOZ link, they should not be used as external links. The Sandman 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HAHA,, how can you say sites like vbh, vbfaq and vbsetup are "lacking recognition by the vb community" vbfaq was voted board of the year. ??? Sandman, don't be ignorant, your site should Never be listed because it isn't directed towards vB like ALL the others are. Btw,, vbadvanced ISN'T active either.. In fact, I'd say one forum in vbfaq or vbsetup is busier then all of vba.. So sandman, whats your excuse now ? - Brandon

Commercial?

It's definitely not a commercial forum package, I own a freehold license, I know lots of other people who have them purely for recreational purposes for their website(s), they may be used by companies, however the majority of users of vbulletin seem to be fansite owners, hobbysite owners and personal website owners.

That statement should be amended.

JBAK88 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


By 'commercial' it means the software isnt free, its for sale. Joeychgo 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Mobile

Are any popular vBulletin forums, I'm thinking Jolt viewable from a mobile phone? Perhaps through google's xhtml renderer, or Opera Mini?

Mathiastck 06:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the foreign language links might be relevant from German, Chinese, etc versions of this article, but they are not strictly relevant to this one, and, per my reading of WP:EL#Non-English_language_content, don't warrant retention. MrZaiustalk 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


comparable to other forum software

This clause strikes me as odd. Isnt it evident that one can compare one forum software to other forum software? Since it links to the article about comparisons of all other forum software, not specifying for instance that its comparable in features to only some particular forums, it doesnt seem to give any information besides that comparisons can be made, which is completely evident. So I suggest this clause be deleted, and the comparison article is given as link in the 'see also' anyways. I see the author of this line (that is, its change from the more specific list of packages it is comparable to ) thinks its unnecessary as well, but I suggest not removing it is overly cautious if simply because someone initiated such a sentence in the first place; lets try seeing if someone actually objects to it not being there, and if there are reasons to support its inclusion; perhaps it was just not well thought out when put there.--83.131.153.198 21:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


2007

Will we be able to get the links back on the vBulleitn wiki page sometime this year ? -Brandon


Im willing to consider it Joeychgo 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


The concensus is to keep the external links as they are - the "official" vBulletin sites and the DMOZ listing of vBulletin related links (which already contains links to joeychgo's and Brandon's sites). The Sandman 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems we were all golden as far as the external links go for close to a year with vb-faq, vbsetup, vbhackers as well as a few others listed. Then Taz and some other sites tried to add their sites, that's when we got all messed up.. -Brandon

I think that the current situation is fine. Status quos can be challenged and changed as necessary. If someone can come up with a convincing reason why we should start adding more ELs I will listen and consider. Until I see that reasoning, then I support the status quo. I hope others will do the same. WP:EL has changed since we last had the debate, so it might be worth updating ourselves on that, if necessary. The points would have to be substantially different points to those raised the last time, though, otherwise we will have the exact same discussion again and reach the same conclusion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Well, first thing I see on WP:EL is

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.

Further, it seems as if the WP:EL supports listing a limited number of relevant, external links. I support my previous suggestions for listing external links and would like to re-evaluate the policy on this page. Joeychgo 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So do I - Brandon

Re-evaluation of how we do things is obviously encouraged. Remember, though, how discussions in the past have got into fights and edit wars about which sites were "good enough" and that is what led us to set the bar the way they are. Everybody considers *their* site as the best, and that is fine, but that doesn't mean it has to be linked on this page. Standard procedure in WP:EL is that if you own a site and want it added to the WP page, you post the request on the Talk page, allow *other* editors to discuss it, and then once agreement is reached, it gets added to the page (not by the owner) - this avoids potential Conflict of Interest issues. This is the way the guidelines sway to do it, and we should stick to that. It is absolutely not acceptable to just add the link to the page.
Since this topic has been so emotive in the past, I'd also like to suggest that *any* addition to the EL section, whether by the owner of the site or not, gets discussed here first. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sad how one or two ppl can ruin something like this. How about you just list the sites that are on the first page of google for "vbulleitn" ? I wish you would reconsider -Brandon


Well, I would 'suggest' the following external links be added:

www.vBulletin-faq www.vbulletinsetup.com www.vbmodder.com www.vbhackers.com

All are free resources dedicated to vBulletin forums. The first 2 are general admin resources which offer advice on how to manage, monetize promote and develop a vBulletin forum. The second two are free resources for vBulletin modifications. It is my opinion that these resources are helpful to the vB admin and each are unique in their own right.

Also, Alucard, I would like to point out that people like sandman also have a conflict of interest in arguing against the listing of sites since they were justifiably denied and are competitors. Having a competing site owner put the kabosh on the listing of a link such as vbfaq or vbsetup smacks of a huge conflict of interest. Joeychgo 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are very few people that contribute to this page that don't have some sort of stake in it. But that doesn't mean that any old link should be added. Listing the people that manage good SERPS results isn't necessarily listing the best resources - a lot of you are familiar enough with the SEO world to know that. It is for exactly the issue of "what happens when a competitor comes along and want so add his (or her) site" that we are where we are today and with the ELs we have today. I invite any of you to request a third opinion on this issue and the suitability of these, and other suggested sites. Try to get more editors involved than just me and the various site owners, wanting to get their link in the EL list... This is far form me to say what should and shouldn't go here, but I will try to avoid the sort of fighting and edit warring that was going on before. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm now watching this page, and I'd be happy to provide an impartial view when I'm available. I use vbulletin for a business website but have no stake in any of the help/FAQ sites. JamminBen 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reading Peak oil and when I got to the external links section, I couldn't help but think of this discussion. I see it's still going on and the bias has not improved. Hopefully it's hit an all-time low with the vBFAQ=chit chat site remark. That is serious slagging. Tsk. Tsk.

I suspect the issue of peak oil is weightier stuff in the grand scheme of things, but the things that stood out on that page are the use of external links sections, the number of external links and the use of a short descriptor text after the link in many instances. And perhaps therein lies some sort of solution.

Perhaps everyone is being just a little too holy as to the number of links. Yes. There needs to be an agreed standard, but by having a number of links with a brief descriptor as to what the reader can expect at the other end would, to my mind, be a valuable encyclopaedic service to what I'd consider the normal reader of the page (whatever normal is)41.244.171.132 09:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)vbuser

Sections on talk page

This isn't relevant to the article itself, just the talk page. I noticed that a lot of the recent entries are subsections of section 15. They don't seem to relate to that section so I've created this section simply as a divider. It should make the table of contents a bit more accurate, so long as new entries are added in the same way. JamminBen 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see why the numbering is off. Perhaps it would be better to archive some of this talk page instead of changing around all the headers. JamminBen 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's much better! Thanks, Alucard! JamminBen 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary and new proposal

If you look back over this page from the beginning, you will see that it is not "one or two" people who have an issue with joeychgo and brandon, their websites, and their tactics - it is many people (at least 10, including Rob.daemon, Zachery.Woods, Matthew Brown, æle, Rasbelin, Havok, lincalinca, Scotsmist, 2005, Alucard, and some contributors who did not give their names). Back in December '05, there was a big problem with link spamming by joeychgo and others - the concensus at the time was not to list vbfaq and other vbulletin chit chat sites by a margin of at least 3:1 - the solution was to list the official sites and the DMOZ link.

Between December '05 and January '07, although there was never a concensus reached at any time to add vbfaq or other such site, the links were repeatedly added and removed in violation of Wikipedia policy which eventually resulted in the article being locked down for a while and the offending parties being reported. It is interesting to note the the two major offenders were joeychgo and brandon, who at that time were quite hostile with each other and kept removing each other's links while saying nasty things to each other on the talk page. Then miraculously, at the time the mediation was announced, they became allies. Since then, they have made a push to have their own sites (vbfaq and vbsetup), and the sites that they represent (brandon in on the staff of vbmodder and vbhackers) while dismissing other sites as unacceptable.

I personally had nothing to do with the removal of their sites - when I became involved in this discussion back in January of this year, the only sites listed as external links were the same as those currently listed - the two official vBulletin sites, vBulletin.com and vBulletin.org, and the DMOZ listing of vBulletin related sites.

During the mediation, the only thing agreed upon by all parties was that no external links should be added to the article without first having a discussion on the talk page and reaching a positive concensus. Nevertheless, as soon as the mediation was officially closed, the first thing joeychgo did was to list his site and brandon's as an exernal link.

Throughout the history of this article, joeychgo and brandon have exhibited bad behavior, and they should not be rewarded for it. Furthermore, since the initial discussion in December '05, every time joeychgo or brandon have added thier sites, or brought them up for discussion, the concensus has been not to list them as external links, but to keep the official sites and DMOZ listing.

Joeychgo has pointed out that the WP:EL states:

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.

I would like to point out some of the other things mentioned in the WP:EL which joeychgo left out:

Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

What would justify a site's inclusion as an external link for this article. First, let's look at the WP:RS - specifically, the answer to the question "What is a reliable source?".

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

In my opinion, vbfaq, vbsetup, and vbsetup are not acceptable sites for inclusion as external links. They are not nearly active enough, are not staffed by anyone regarded as an expert in vBulletin (such as former or present official vBulletin personel or other vBulletin experts generally recongized by the greater vBulletin community), do not have any significant content written by such recognized vBulletin experts. These sites contain, in essence, vBulletin chit chat and are not authoritative or trustworthy sources worthy of the Wikipedia.

In addition, these sites offer little if anything beyond that what is available on the official sites, and are already listed in the external links, under the DMOZ vBulletin related links. That is sufficient to give the wiki reader access to these sites should they wish to explore.

I propose that 3 sites be added to the external links: vBAdvanced, vBHackers, and the Admin Zone.

vBadvanced is the source of one of the most widely repected, widely installed free vBulletin modifications, and is the only site on the net for official information and support. This site has more members, and more posts, than vbfaq, vbsetup, and vbmodder put together.

vBHackers, while not all that busy, has more members than vbfaq, vbsetup, and vbmodder put together and offers some modifications not available at the official site. I consider it borderline for inclusion, and brandon (AKA loco) is an administrator there, but nevertheless I propose it for inclusion.

The Admin Zone contains more vBulletin related content that any other vBulletin related site - more than all of them put together. And much of our content is authoritative, having either been written by or reviewed by official vBulletin staff members and/or other vBulletin authorities as recognized by the vBulletin community. We have interviews with quite a few Jelsoft/vBulletin Development and Support Team members, vBulletin.org administrators, and other experts. We have authoritative articles and reviews of scores of vBulletin forums. And we have tens of thousands of posts written by these same experts and others. The Admin Zone has 3 1/2 times as many posts as vbfaq, vbsetup, and vbmodder put together, but it's the reliability and authoritativeness of our content that make this site suitable as an external link.

Of course, joeychgo and brandon don't want TAZ listed, their stated reason being that our topic is too broad since we also cover other forum software. However, as Alucard points out, the WP:EL has evolved, and now states:

If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

This removes the obstacle which prevented TAZ from being listed.

With the two official sites, vBAdvanced, vBHackers, the Admin Zone, and the DMOZ vBulletin related site links there would be 6 external links (and those sites such as vbfaq, vbsetup, and vbmodder within the DMOZ listing) - plenty for the article.

Again quoting the WP:EL:

As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

Thereafter, in order for other sites to be considered for listing as an external link, they should be required to make a request on the talk page and show justification that they equal or exceed the existing external links in unique, reliable, authoritative content. The Sandman 22:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


And naturally, your solution is to list your site and not vBfaq. Yup - thats not a blatent conflict of interest. You have 1 forum dedicated to vBulletin, Branden and I have entire websites dedicated. Google considers our sites to be pretty authoritative, but your site doesnt show on the first 10 google pages for 'vBulletin'. I guess, on that topic, google doesnt consider TAZ to be too authoritative. You have a subforum dedicated to vB with 2100 threads. 2100 out of 39,000. Not too much dedicated to vBulletin there. Sandman, your blatent attempt to keep anyone else besides you out of the links is clear and obvious to me. Sorry, I dont buy into it. I was once willing to capitulate in the interest of peace and to give those reading the page as much relevant information as possible. Not anymore, because you have demonstrated that you dont care about the page and are only interesting in fighting. Had you said - "hey, can we toss in the taz forum dedicated to vB" I would have really considered it, but you just want exclusivity. Sorry - I cant support that. And I cant support the notion that YOUR site is the only admin site out there of value. Joeychgo 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I have spent the past few years developing the Admin Zone by building reliable, authoritative content. For the most part, I have avoided worrying about SEO and SERPs. Instead, I attracted a large number of vBulletin experts as contributing members and staffers, did a lot of original interviews with the principle vBulletin Developers and support staff and other recognized leaders in the vBulletin world, and amassed at large collection of high quality articles by numerous talented individuals well respected by the vBulletin community.

During this time, joeychgo has avoided worrying about building reliable, authoritative content. Instead, the vast majority of his efforts have been in the SEO and SERP game - dropping his links on as many large, high pr sites as he could, endlessly tweaking his keywords, and doing whatever it is that SEO seekers do.

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Admin Zone is now a reliable, authoritative, content-rich site while vbfaq is... not - it's a low trafficked site with very little reliable content... but good SERPs. I'm sure Google and the other search engines love what you've done - but they're search engines, not vBulletin administrators. And with all of that good SEO and SERPs, you'd think you'd vbfaq would have a little more activity and attract some expert contributors. Instead, it's vBulletin chit chat.

According to the WP:EL guidelines, the external link to the Admin Zone needs to point to the "dedicated vBulletin section", which is why it currently points to the vBulletin forum. However, the vast majority of out vBulletin related content is not in that forum - it's in the other sections such as Articles, Interviews, Managing an Online Community, and Finance & Traffic among many others. In my estimation, there are over 30,000 threads (with between 150,000 and 200,000 posts) that are directly applicable to vBulletin users. I plan to make a vBulletin landing page to use as a link instead of simply linking to the vBulletin forum, which will give the wiki reader a better means of navigating TAZ's wealth of vBulletin-related content and resources.

Furthermore, you might notice that the vBulletin wiki article has a link to the wiki article dealing with Comparison of Forum Software. Given that, all of TAZ's content becomes relevant to the article since we have developers and support staff of many of the major alternative software products to vBulletin, and thousands of their members too.

When it comes to a wiki article, what matters is reliable, authoritative content, not SEO and SERPs. The content of the Admin Zone speaks for itself, as does the content of vbfaq. The only obstacle to having the Admin Zone listed as an external link was the wording of the old WP:EL - now that that's been clarified, TAZ should definitely be listed.

I think that my proposal is a reasonable compromise - it lists the Admin Zone, which is clearly appropriate as well as two other sites I'm not affiliated with. vBAdvanced is also appropriate in my opinion since it is the unique source of some extrremely useful free software and is the official support/help site for over 60,000 members. Of the 4 sites joeychgo and brandon proposed for inclusion, I picked the one which is by far the most popular and authoritative site for vBulletin modifications outside of vBulletin.org. The other 3 sites simply don't have the reliable, authoritative content necessary for inclusion, and no amount of SEO and SERP hocus pocus is gonna change that. The fact is, over the past couple of years - long before I ever posted here - the concensus has always gone against adding joeychgo's and brandon's sites whenever they added them. Never has there been a concensus to add them. That has nothing to do with me, my bias, or the Admin Zone. It has everything to do with the lack of reliable, authoritative content. Res ipsa loquitur The Sandman 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments in anyone's points so far. Just the same old accusations and proposals that came up the past few times. Right now I can't see any reason to change the way things are. If anyone has anything really new to say, then I am all ears.... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this has already been said ... At TAZ I see subforums for vBulletin, IPB, phpBB, YaBB, UseBB, SMF, and MyBB. If TAZ were to be linked from the vbulletin article, is it fair to say it could also be linked from the articles for all of the other systems listed there (if the articles exist)? The "deep linking" comment is one thing, but would it be acceptable for the same board to be linked from seven different articles?
Consider a board that focuses on TV and has, say, 100 different forums for popular TV shows. Are we saying that the board could be "deep linked" from every single one of the articles for those shows? Isn't that bordering on spam?
I do not think the updated rule for "deep linking" should be taken to mean that ANY board with a forum dedicated to vbulletin is eligible for inclusion. It would be different if vbulletin was a very small and unknown product, but to me it seems there's no shortage of vbulletin resource sites. Therefore, whether deep linked or not, each link should be considered on its own merits.
(By the way, this doesn't automatically mean I am suggesting that vbFAQ should be linked - I think the sites should be considered separately.) JamminBen 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the sites should be considered separately and have never suggested otherwise. The reason I believe that TAZ should be included as an external link is because it contains a large body of reliable, authoritative, relevant content directly applicable to vBulletin forums of the type specifically mentioned in the WP:EL - articles, reviews, and interviews. And much of this content comes from contributors generally acknowledged to be vBulletin experts. This should be the overriding concern - quantity and quality of relevant content. If vbfaq, vbmodder, and vbsetup for example contained the resources necessary for inclusion in the article, then the inclusion of TAZ might be considered superfluous and the nod given to the more specific "dedicated to vBulletin" sites. This is not the case however - it's the Admin Zone that has most of the authoritative resources for vBulletin outside of the official sites. Chit chat sites - even if "dedicated to vBulletin", should not be listed as external links.

Many respected resources, be they books or websites, have a focus that includes more than one narrow subject. Why should that be a cause for concern? By that reasoning, the Wikipedia itself would have to be considered the world's biggest spammer - it comes up highly in searches for most everything imaginable, and is cited as an authority in countless different matters. The WP:EL specifically allows deep linking to a dedicated section within a more general site as long as the linked materials are reliable, authoritative, and relevant - if you disagree with this then you should take it up on the WP:EL talk page. I will tell you though that there was a large positive concensus on this issue during the discussions that led up to the change being made to the WP:EL.

If you look at the wiki articles for phpBB and IPB, the other two forum software products of the "Big 3", the trend is to list only the official sites. If that is the concensus for vBulletin as well, I have no problem with it (as I have said in the past). However, if additional external links are to be added, it should be on the basis of reliable, authoritative, relevant content. The Sandman 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of heated debate on the subject and the apparent inability to reach any sort of real consensus, I think that "official sites only" stand is appropriate. Add in the ODP link and you have links to many others... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sandman, you said: I agree that the sites should be considered separately and have never suggested otherwise. But you also said: Chit chat sites - even if "dedicated to vBulletin", should not be listed as external links. What does that have to do with YOUR site? It sounds like you are trying to put forward your own site and then go on to discredit someone else's site. It's comments like this that may have prevented any consensus being reached.
As for which sites to include, I think you missed my point. I fully appreciate that deep linking to sites with multiple focal points is accepted and allowed on Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that just because it is allowed, doesn't mean all sites automatically get in just by having a vbulletin forum. Regardless of whether it's 100% on-topic or just "chit chat".
Finally, I think it helps to be as concise as possible when putting your case forward. Long comments are a lot harder to read and digest than short, succinct points. JamminBen 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandman, you said: I agree that the sites should be considered separately and have never suggested otherwise. But you also said: Chit chat sites - even if "dedicated to vBulletin", should not be listed as external links. What does that have to do with YOUR site? It sounds like you are trying to put forward your own site and then go on to discredit someone else's site. It's comments like this that may have prevented any consensus being reached.

I have put forward my site in the appropriate manner - by bringing it up on this talk page. When I first did so some months ago the general opinion was that TAZ was not eligible due to WP:EL guidelines regarding it's coverage of other forum softwares. I accepted that at the time - however, the WP:EL has changed and it's now clear that TAZ is eligible. This is true regardless of whether any other particular site is listed as an external link.

I also believe that the other sites campaigning to be external links are not appropriate for the reasons I've already given. This is true whether or not TAZ is listed as an external link.

Both joeychgo and brandon are of the opinion that their own sites should be listed, and they also believe that TAZ should not be listed. Do you not take the same issue with them as well? Their alliance in this matter is striking since for a long time they were the two major combatants in the edit wars - they couldn't add their own links and remove each other's links fast enough.

You say there was no concensus but that is not correct. The concensus against joeychgo and brandon existed long before I got here. As I posted a few entries above, between December '05 and January '07 at least 10 editors wanted the links removed - a ratio of at least 3:1 against inclusion. That has never changed. I'm just the latest of many who felt the same way about this issue. Several times joeychgo has implied that he would "OK" TAZ if I would OK his site. Is that the way this is supposed to work?

As for which sites to include, I think you missed my point. I fully appreciate that deep linking to sites with multiple focal points is accepted and allowed on Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that just because it is allowed, doesn't mean all sites automatically get in just by having a vbulletin forum. Regardless of whether it's 100% on-topic or just "chit chat".

And all I'm saying that if additional external links are to be added to the existing list of official sites and DMOZ, they should reflect the existing WP:EL policy and be required to justify thier inclusion with authoritative, reliable, relevant content - particularly articles, reviews, and interviews.

Finally, I think it helps to be as concise as possible when putting your case forward. Long comments are a lot harder to read and digest than short, succinct points.

As a relatively recent arrival to this page myself, I thought it would be helpful for the newcomers if I was to summarize a bit in my narrative. Otherwise you would have to read this entire page from the beginning to get a feel for what went on around here prior to the "mediation". The problem is, although the concensus was always against the addition of certain sites (including joeychgo's and brandon's), they were added anyway and some major edit wars and vandalism took place. Whenever the warring died down and the opponents moved on, the links would be replaced. However, since they were there in spite of a negative concensus, a time always came when someone would come along and remove the links and the problems would begin anew. This was all before my time here - the fact that joeychgo's and brandon's sites are not currently listed in the article has nothing to do with me, as their links were removed prior to the mediation and prior to my arrival here. I've added my opinions to the mix, but I wasn't the cause of their removal - many others have had the same opinion going back over the history of this page. The Sandman 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you are bringing this up in the right place, but I still think that your comment to exclude "chit chat sites" has nothing to do with putting YOUR case forward.
Both joeychgo and brandon are of the opinion that their own sites should be listed, and they also believe that TAZ should not be listed. Do you not take the same issue with them as well? - If they were requesting their sites to be linked and making comments about your site in the process, then yes I would say the same thing to them. But this is YOU stating YOUR case because the external link guidelines changed.
I appreciate the summary, but if this were to be decided by a vote, people are not going to read long comments. They will simply want to know why your site should be linked with as few words as possible. All you needed to say was that as the external links guidelines have changed, you believe your site should be reconsidered, and then tell us why your link should be added. Any more info is just going to prevent people from being able to conclude if your site should be linked. That's the position I'm in right now: amongst all the other commentary, I don't see a concise explanation as to why TAZ should be listed. If you could add one, it would help. JamminBen 03:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. TAZ should be listed because:

  • We're an active site: Threads: 38,780, Posts: 282,868, Members: 20,666, Active Members: 2,310 We average 300-400 members visiting per day during most of the year, and 200 - 300 per day during the summer months. This is in additon to at least 10 times that amount in guest traffic.
  • I estimate that we have about 30,000 threads (150,000 - 200,000 posts) on TAZ which are directly applicable to vBulletin forum owners/admins. Our vBulletin forum (specifically for vB tech help questions) is but one small part of this and has over 15,600 posts. Our coverage of vBulletin is obvious throughout the rest of the forums as well.
  • We have significant contributions (thousands of posts, articles, etc.) from quite a few staff members of the two official vBulletin sites, vBulletin.com and vBulletin.org. This includes Erwin, Logician, Paul M, Wayne Luke, Floris, Kall, Danny, Brad, Princeton, Zachery, amykhar, and eva2000. Likewise, there are significant contributions (thousands more posts, articles, etc.) from other generally recognized experts in the realm of vBulletin and related fields such as Ted S, Kathy, Quentin, AWS, and David Chapman among others.
  • We also have an abundance of developers, support staffers, and other experts from many of the other popular forum software products. This gives the vBulletin admin a chance to interact with admins of boards different than their own, to gain a broader perspective. In truth, most issues forum admins face are not software related - there are countless instances where an admin running one type of software helps, or is helped, by someone running another forum software product.
  • There is a large dedicated section for articles and interviews. Most of our hundreds of articles are original and have thousands to tens of thousands of page views. We have 14 interviews with official vBulletin Team members, also with many thousands of page views. We have dozens of other interviews as well, with SEO experts, coders, Big Board admins, and developers of other forum software products
  • We have a very active Review forum where our specially trained Reviewers perform comprehensive forum reviews covering many major aspects of importance to the forum owner. These critical reviews, each of which takes 30 minutes to an hour to perform, have helped hundreds of vBulletin forum owners.
  • There is a dedicated forum exchange section where hundreds of forum administrators interact with each other one on one for mutual benefit by creating reciprocal posting activity on each other's forums.
  • We also have a dedicated Launch Team, where hundreds of forum administrators collaborate to help launch new forums, and get their own forums launched in turn.
  • And, a dedicated Big Boards forum (with thousands of posts) for administrators of sites with greater than 500,000 posts. This elite group has about 300 vBulletin admins participating. The group was conceived in collaboration with Quentin, creator of the Big-Boards website. Not only does this provide a place for private discussions between admins of very large forums, it creates an opportunity for these Big Board admins to interact with admins of smaller boards throughout the forums. The Sandman 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. From what you've said, I think that TAZ would be a very worthy inclusion in the list of external links. So if this is a poll, you've got my vote. JamminBen 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


I think TAZ should be linked from a different page, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_forum_software. You make a good point Jamminben that if linked from here then one could argue TAZ should be links from IPB, phpBB, YaBB, UseBB, SMF, and MyBB as well. Even in DMOZ, TAZ doesnt appear in the vBulletin catagory, but on a more general catagory. Past that, even using sandman's own estimations, only about 10% of the posts on TAZ are dedicated to vBulletin. Not a ringing endorsement. I wont get into my own site by comparison except to say that my less then 2 year old site has 56,000 posts dedicated to vBulletin. My point being in almost twice the time, TAZ has managed to get only half the vBulletin posts when compared to forums he puts down. Its still my opinion that TAZ covers many topics and there are many forums out there which are similar inthat they cover many topics. DigitalPoint is a good example where if you do a search for vBulletin, you max out at 5000 related threads immediately - ad if you take it further and search the google index for vBulletin, you get 30,000 posts listed as well. My point being, we wouldnt list such a broad resource, and taz is just that, a broad resource which should be linked from a broader topic wiki page IMO. Joeychgo 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont see where joeychgo gets this from my statement "By my estimates, at least 30,000 threads (150,000 to 200,000 posts) are directly applicable to vBulletin forum admins". Far more than 10% of the posts on TAZ are applicable to vBulletin - it's more like 75%. And most of the other 25% are at least of interest to the vBulletin admin. Anyone who checks out TAZ will be able to see that it has a wealth of relevant, reliable, and authoritative content on the subject. Of course he won't "get into his own site by comparison". I should note here that during the mediation, the mediator and several participants tried to set up some objective criteria by which vBulletin related sites could be judged reliable and authoritative. It's obvious why joeychgo and brandon would not agree to any criteria based on activity, national or international recognition, Alexa rating, recognized expertise of contributing members or staff, unique features, etc.. This is the main reason the mediation failed.

DigitalPoint would not be appropriate as an external link because it has no section dedicated to vBulletin and has a focus much broader than forum software. vBulletin is only an afterthought there, of no significant concern, and very little of the content on DP is of direct relevance to vBulletin admins. The points I listed above in favor of TAZ are.

The fact that TAZ is not listed in the DMOZ vBulletin list is all the more reason to list it as an external link. If it's not listed, it won't be available to the wiki reader. Sites which are listed in the DMOZ list, on the other hand, need not be listed as they are still accessible to the wiki reader.The Sandman 18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on the 30k ---- I misread. So your saying your site is almost dedicated to vB? As far as DMOZ - your in a different catagory. Maybe alucard can have you moved to the vB catagory. Since your almost dedicated to vB, then that might be appropriate for him to do. Joeychgo 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
vb is the most popular system, so I can understand how TAZ can have so much more vb content than anything else. Even if TAZ tried to provide the same amount of material for all message boards, there's potentially a larger audience for vb than any of the other systems, so there's more demand for vb content. JamminBen 10:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Almost dedicated" is a bit of an oxymoron, but we do have much more extensive coverage of vBulletin than we do the other forum software products due to the large number of official vBulletin staffers and other vBulletin experts who contribute to our site. The Sandman 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"do the other forum software products" This is exactly why taz wont make it in the official vBulleitn wiki page. -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.74.168 (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


So, are we ever going to be able to add some more vb sites to the list ? It's very obvoius that the sandmans site shouldn't be listed, he doesn't even allow users that visit other vb sites, like vb-faq or vbsetup, to join his site.. He'll ban you if you sign up.. Now is this the type of site we want on the vb wiki page ? I think not.. It's pretty amazing since he claims to have a Dr. degree and acts like a kid... We should be networking all the vb help sites, not banning those who are not from your own site.. How long before www.vbulletin-faq.com www.vbulletinsetup.com and www.vbhackers.com gets added to the list again ???

-Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.226.137 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The only intelligible objection to adding The Admin Zone to the list of external links has been that the site is not dedicated solely to vBulletin. While I understand the opinion, the revisions to the WP:EL and opinions of the requested third opinion seem to agree with my asserton that since TAZ has by far the most, and most authoritative, vBulletin resources availabe from any non-official site that it should be listed. Anyone who actually checks out the various sites will see for themselves that TAZ should be an external link for this article, and no one will take any request for adding other sites seriously as long as such a resource as TAZ is excluded. Once TAZ is listed, I personally would not object to the inclusion of one additional link - to the next best available resource. The Sandman (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we would need to add a couple of style sites, a couple of commercial sites, a couple of fan sites and so on then round in circles again. It might have quitened down but opinions are still the same here, stick with the two official links and dmoz. Scotsmist (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dilemma here - there is no basis for your assertion that we must either leave things as they are or "add a couple of style sites, a couple of commercial sites, a couple of fan sites and so on". It seems perfectly reasonable to me to add the two best overall vBulletin resources to the list of external links, and would also be within the WP:EL guidelines (assuming the two additional sites are of sufficient authority). The Sandman (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"TAZ has by far the most, and most authoritative, vBulletin resources availabe from any non-official site that it should be listed" - Not in a million years Sir. You're site is not that great, but how would I know.. You ban any forum admin or mod that is on a vb or webmaster help site from your forum for no reason at all.. I bet you can't show a handful of users on your forum that is an admin or mod at Any of the webmaster help forums.. Why on earth would your site be listing on the official vbulletin wiki page!! - Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.14 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with your personal attacks on this page, and repeated vandalism of the vBulletin article requiring disciplinary action by the Wikipedia staff in the past, can understand why you are banned from TAZ. The same is true for any other person banned from TAZ - it's either due to spamming or disruptive behavior - and certainly not a function of which forums they visit. Regardless, TAZ is by far the most comprehensive and authoritative non-official vBulletin resource available and should be listed as an external link. The Sandman (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you are such a joke. You had no reason to ban me or my staff, or the staff at AF or vbfaq.. You really think your slick, but I'm not buying it at all. You even told a client that was thinking about buying Adminfusion that if he did, you would ban him and any of his staff. If you had half a brain, you would realize that my "vandalisms" were all within the first few weeks that I even visited the wiki.. I didn't know the rules and since those first few weeks I have never added my link or removed one.. Don't try to live in the past, and get off your high horse. You site belongs on this page just like adminfusion would, or any number of other webmaster forums.. But I'm sure you'll come up with some worthless excuse why your site should be added.. -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.14 (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


You're blowing a lot of smoke, but the fact remains - TAZ is by far the most comprehensive and authoritative non-official vBulletin resource available and should be listed as an external link. Since you have no valid basis to dispute that, and can't justify inclusion of your own site, you make ridiculous accusations which you can't back up and which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I said above that the two non-official sites with the best vBulletin related resources should be listed - that would be TAZ and one other. Your recommendation of AdminFusion works for me. The Sandman (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Taz doesn't deserve the right to even be in the wiki period with the way You run it. And the fact is, that this page is for vBulletin sites... Not sites that have a "section" for vB discussion. You're site doesn't even deserve to be discussed on the vb discussion page IMO. - Brandon ps.. You know everything I've said is true, any of us who have seen your site come together and have personally dealt with you, can back it up ten fold about your anti-competition banning mentality! - Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.14 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how listing TAZ or any other non official site is going to benefit the actual content of the article and what vBulletin is. TAZ is a general site and not specific to vBulletin for example, although it has sections on vBulletin and interviews it is not the place one would go th find out about vBulletin, that would be the two official sites, or the DMOZ link directory. If there was anything important on TAZ about vBulletin it should be included somewhere in the article's content and cited. Listing any other sites except the two official and DMoz is going to start the whole thing again. Why is that site listed and my site not argument. Why for example is there is no link to vBulletin's Blog or there other projects, because they are not vbulletin. This page is about the product vBulletin, not sites linked to vbulletin, that's what DMoz s for. Scotsmist (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've outlined my disagreement with this argument. Regardless, that doesn't explain why the TAZ interviews are not linked with the vBulletin developers within the article itself. The Sandman (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

TAZ will never be listed on the vb page,it's obvious to everyone, give it up! - Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.7.244 (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


as long as www.vbulletin-faq.com www.vbulletinsetup.com and www.vbhackers.com dont belong listed, TAZ especially doesnt belong. Why? Simple. TAZ isnt dedicated to vBulletin, the other 3 sites are. Any other comparison you make is purely subjective and opinion. TAZ may or may not be bigger or busier then the others - but it is not dedicated to vB. As far as the interviews, a number of sites have similar interviews. When you fought to exclude the other sites, you excluded your own site as well. Joeychgo (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)



Quoting the WP:EL

If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

TAZ may or may not be bigger or busier than the others - that sounds like Bill Clinton answering questions about Monica Lewinsky. Regardless, this is about the authority and reliability of a resource, nothing else - joeychgo's reply conveniently leaves out any mention of the most important criteria for inclusion. TAZ has the authoritative and reliable content necessary for inclusion. The requested 3rd opinion agreed - for unclear reasons the party requesting the 3rd opinion hasn't been around since the opinion he asked for was rendered. Unfortunately, certain site owners have been disrupting the listing process by clamoring for inclusion for years despite overwhelming objections by numerous editors. Now, most previously interested parties have long ago moved on, leaving the one best resource for vBulletin admins unlisted because there are no unbiased editors around to voice an opinion. The Sandman (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you honestly say TAZ should be listed. It will never be listed on the vb page because it isn't a site dedicated to vBulletin. So if I get a few phpbb developers to post interviews on my site, then we should be listed on the phpbb wiki page? No, ofcourse not. If anything your interviews are just info that has been regulated on your site.. The original sites (vb.org/vb.com) should be listed.. Not a new site reporting Bio's form the developers... -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.9.28 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

vBulletin.org: Official, semi-official or unofficial?

I think vBulletin.org is an official site. It's run on Jelsoft's servers, and coordinated by Marco van Herwaarden, a paid Jelsoft employee who's solely recruited for administering it. Also the site itself mentions that it's "The Official vBulletin Modifications Site"[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimsimTee (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

vBulletin 3.8

vBulletin 3.8 has been released as "Gold" so I took the libery of updating the article.

Source: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=201060


Regards, CRaiGaFeR14™ t | c 15:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

The forum post is by an official vBulletin team member, not some random person. It's certainly accurate and has been verified by officials representing Internet Brands and the vBulletin team on their official platform for giving information to the vBulletin community. You have no basis to call the information inaccurate. Motivez (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has issues with the ongoing controversy regarding the AdSense integration on vBulletin.com, please discuss your issues here rather than simply deleting all of the content about it. This is a rather big deal with the vBulletin community and there needs to be some information about it on this page. Nothing I have posted is "original research" and I've provided citations linking to posts by officials at Jelsoft/vBulletin discussing and verifying the text I have added. There's no valid reason to delete the entire entry, if you'd like to discuss what form the section takes, by all means.. post. Until then, stop deleting and start talking. Motivez (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You call it a "controversy" - there is no reliable source confirming that it is controversial. 2. "This is not 100% clear during the sign up process ..." and the rest of that sentence is unsourced. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it is controversial or belongs in an encyclopedia article. Has anyone on the planet outside of the vBulletin community (like a reliable source) noticed this "controversy"? --B (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The larger issue here is that Wikipedia policy indicates that forum posts are not reliable sources of information. In this case, as indicated by B above, "controversy" around this issue seems to exist primarily on a non-objective discussion forum thread. To date, this "controversy" has not been confirmed by a reliable source. Additionally, if one looks at recent posts to the vBulletin discussion thread on which the cited post exists, vBulletin officials made official clarifying statements on the issue that are inconsistent with items presented as fact in the "Controversy" section -- an example of why individual forum posts or threads should not be used as sources.CellarDoor2001 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VBulletin/Archive_1&oldid=1251936232"