Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) An entire section is devoted to one unofficial patch, which borders on a mod.
 * 2) A simple passing mention of another patch should be allowed, given it is discussed on Steam, gog, and other sites.
 * 3) Focus on a single fan-made modification in detail without allowing a single sentence mentioning another patch seems slanted and biased. There is bad blood between the makers of both patches and the fandom in general. Other editors have openly admitted to bias.
 * 4) Ideal solution would be to allow the simple mention, as its very existence helped push development of the patch mentioned in the article.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * 1) An entire section is not devoted to the patch. A paragraph within a section is.
 * 2) There is no reason to mention the alternative patch. It is the work by Spahl that has gained notable coverage. The source added by CoolGamer to verify the existence of the alternative patch even notes that it was created using code stolen from Spahl, and that even when this was raised with the copier, it is still believed that they used Spahl's work to make their own easier. Again that is all in the source Coolgamer added. I can't say I'm an expert on either, but the information available (of which there is much for Spahl's work on several sites) suggests that "True Patch Gold" is literally just a patch to fix things. Therefore there is no need to mention it beyond some perceived notion that it is of equal stature to the Spahl work and so needs to be given some kind of prominence.
 * 3) Focus on the single patch is based on the available information. Spahl's work has been covered on places like Eurogamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and GamesRadar off the top of my head, and it's been covered extensively. It's not there because I care about Spahl's work or favour it, because I didn't even know where was some kind of apparently petty schism between groups over them. Nor is it bias because it isn't denigrating other patches or promoting Spahl's work as some untouchable, necessary work, it mentions it's criticisms. No editor I have seen during this has mentioned bias either so it seems weird to bring that up.
 * 4) There is no need to mention the other patch. It's not a fan site, and we don't owe the makers of a rival patch coverage merely based on their existence. Patches on their own are not notable any more than standard marketing materials are.

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Coolgamer (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Autobots, roll out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Rejected under prerequisite for mediation #9, that "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." With only two of you in the dispute, I'd suggest starting at Third Opinion then moving to DRN if that doesn't work. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)