. No further comments after the relist over a week ago, and no consensus prior to the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse.
An example of a similarly unhelpful redirect would be WP:KILL to WP:BLOCK. We don't want users running around complaining that an admin threatened to "kill" them; in a similar way we don't want users to complaing that gamers are "gaslighting" them. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally we should have some sort of policy or information page about this, but I can't immediately find anything. I suspect that if we do have something the folks at WT:HARASSMENT will be aware of it so I'll leave a note about this discussion there. I agree the current target isn't right though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process (the section directly below the current target) which specifically mentions gaslighting as a separate bullet point. In fact it's already listed as a shortcut for that section, not the one it currently targets. I suspect someone just made a mistake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
::Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The section mentioned by Ivanvector contains examples of behaviours that I see quite often, such as "misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means". For example, someone might cite WP:NOTDIRECTORY to delete a list or WP:DICDEF to delete a stub. Characterising this as "gaslighting" seems unhelpful and contrary to WP:AGF. Such confusion is most likely to be the result of misunderstanding per Hanlon's razor. As the "gaslighting" metaphor is quite obscure and psychiatric in nature, we should avoid it as it's likely to cause confusion, dissension and bad feeling itself. If people seems to be misrepresenting the facts of a matter or the details of relevant policy, then people should say so plainly, rather than alluding to a play/movie from over 75 years ago. See also WP:CRYPTIC. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep
I think the broader list under the original redirect -> :Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the use of policies and guidelines is actually more useful, and covers more of the Gaslighting behaviors we see in disruptive editing, than does the more limited one at Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Amending. See comment below. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I tried to find a section at WP:Harassment that would be an appropriate target, but there aren't really any good fits. I don't like any of the Gaming-the-system targets, because those targets include things that are not gaslighting. True gaslighting is such an extreme phenomenon that labeling anything that way immediately renders the target of the redirect as something that would be worthy of a site ban. I've often seen editors claim that someone else is gaslighting them, when it's really just a disagreement, and we shouldn't give that any kind of "official" imprimatur. Better to delete it, so that it doesn't get misused as a way to accuse someone hyperbolically. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
:::What if we added something concise and carefully-worded to the WP:HARASSMENT policy to cover the instances in which Gaslighting is definitely happening? Or a section at WP:BULLY? On-wiki, we tiptoe around how to phrase it when someone is blatantly lying. We had to do some similar word-wrangling with the "stalking" -> "hounding" etc stuff and we managed it. Policies will always get misrepresented, but if we have something solid to link to, I think that might be better than nothing. Thoughts? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::::One would have to have consensus for adding something like that to the harassment policy before deciding on that. And, speaking as someone with a lot of experience in discussions about that policy, it would be a battle royal to get something like that added, if consensus to do so could even be obtained at all. I'd suggest starting with a collection of specific examples of editors actually gaslighting other editors (likewise for WP:BULLY). Otherwise, the redirect is just a solution in search of a problem. Blatant lying is really something less than gaslighting. If someone is deliberately lying, say that they are lying. Don't say that someone is gaslighting unless they genuinely are. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::This sounds like it would be useful to have a page that includes examples of things that are sometimes called gaslighting but actually aren't, pointing to the pages about what they actually are (e.g. gaming the system, hounding, etc) and a section on what gaslighting actually is. Probably it would be best for this to at least start out as its own page (Wikipedia:Gaslighting perhaps)- it could be merged into WP:HARASS later if there a consensus for it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::{{od}}{{u|Thryduulf}} - #4 in Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process which is the current redirect is pretty clear, and includes examples:
::{{talk quote|Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord.
Examples: denying that you posted what you did, suggesting someone agreed to something they did not, pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus.}}
::What more is there? Atsme Talk 📧 18:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - it just needs a quickie fix for the redirect per Ivanvector. Atsme Talk 📧 16:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, though I agree this needs to be concisely added to the harassment policy per CorbieVreccan (as does tag-teaming). {{small|added: Thanks for fixing that odd K eating edit I discovered when I came back from the kitchen, Atsme.}} Some examples that I think reasonable people would agree belong somewhere along the bullying / harassment / gaslighting continuum are here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHere_to_build_an_encyclopedia&type=revision&diff=894946283&oldid=894648327 this] (ES), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=907779861&oldid=907775317 this] (content), & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&curid=59652622&diff=898677673&oldid=898676366 this] (ES) are all variations on the theme. I hope they'll help inspire people to write something concise into policy (WP:POV Railroad comes closest and that essay is mentioned in PAG at both WP:BULLY and WP:HERE, though it is well-hidden in the latter.) I could add some further examples with other actors once I get around to investing bureaucratic time it would require to remove a no-fault non-sanction. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Comment - {{u|Thryduulf}}, you are correct, that text is very good and covers it. I am rather appalled and sorry to admit I just missed that text when I looked at the Gaming the System section. I'm usually way more careful than that. I didn't page down far enough. But if I missed it, I bet others will. I think a temporary fix would be to move the direct link to that exact section. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system&diff=908293396&oldid=906095388 Like this]. If you don't like this, anyone, just revert me. This is a suggestion; I know we haven't agreed on this. And if we decide to add something to harassment, we could use that text as a basis. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be a quick and easy fix that everyone agrees with. So lets just go with that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- :"That everyone agrees with"? Not me! I still very much believe that it should be deleted, at least for now. Please note that a deleted redirect can always be recreated at a later time. (I'm sure no one is going to WP:SALT it.) All that the discussion so far really seems to indicate is that gaslighting is something that we can describe as not really existing here. (The editors who have said otherwise are mislabeling disagreements about content, or perhaps the ramblings of very confused users, as "gaslighting". A user with ridiculous views, who insists that those views are correct, most likely really believes those things, wrongly, but is not intentionally trying to make other editors feel disoriented. Similarly, one who denies that they said something that they did say, is being duplicitous, but that's just standard tendentious editing and shouldn't leave anyone else bewildered: after all, we do have diffs.) To have WP:Gaslighting as a sort of reverse DAB page, that lists all the things that are not gaslighting, well, I think that page should be created first, and go through the inevitable lack of consensus that it will generate until editors can actually agree on what gaslighting is and isn't, and then the redirect can be recreated – or it wouldn't really be needed, since it would simply be an all-caps version of the pagename. We don't need WP:GASLIGHTING as a redirect to WP:Gaslighting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::I'm sorry, almost all agree then. But I do think your arguments are not very convincing. Especially when you go on about other users. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- :::You don't need to be sorry. But I wasn't "going on" about other users in this discussion, but rather about the arguments being made by them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system&diff=847025833&oldid=845082751 June 22, 2018] is when I first learned the term, and no one that I'm aware of has objected to its use until now, and I can understand why. It has been over a year since that definition was first added to the guideline. Gee, and with perfect timing for its first use, which was probably gaslighting in and of itself. It actually does fit the definitions in the current section as it applies to opposition editing rather than collaboration - give or take 1 or 2 examples that miss the mark. The term doesn't have to live-up to its reputation in the stage play "Gaslight" or in any of the movie adaptations. It has long since become a ubiquitous term used by MSM and by politicians, etc. as evidenced by this [https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/beerbohm/files/eb_rd_gaslighting_citizens_apsa_2018_v1_1_0.pdf Harvard] paper. There is also [https://femmagazine.com/feminism-101-what-is-gaslighting/ this] article as it applies to females, and I would imagine our female editors could more easily relate to what gaslighting feels like than perhaps our male editors? Just a thought. Of course on WP, its all about relevancy as it pertains to the written guideline. All we need is minor fix of the link. Atsme Talk 📧 01:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::Thanks for the interesting reading. There's no question that the term plays a prominent role in society, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it happens in the course of Wikipedia editing. I do take the source about gendering very seriously, and perhaps that is a reason to consider the term here (although we should also be careful not to carelessly misuse the term out of sympathy). As for the gaming guideline, it may not mean very much unless there had been extensive discussion leading to the addition of the term there, such as a community RfC. Myself, I was unaware of it until I saw it in this RfD discussion. I really am concerned about the hazards of calling editing conduct gaslighting, even with the variations of how the term is understood. It's just too easy to be in a situation where an editor who is in the minority of a discussion claims that everyone else is gaslighting them. Perhaps I should say that the editors who favor keeping, here, are gaslighting me! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- :::You are welcome. I understand your concern, but from my perspective as a female editor who has been both a target, and wrongfully accused of gaslighting, it is much worse to be the target. Women may very well interpret it differently but that doesn't mean their interpretation is incorrect. Walk a few steps in my shoes. WP:GASLIGHTING is not uncommon in political debates, and it can prove quite successful when COI editors/POV warriors are gaming the system in numbers, which can contribute to a false consensus that a single editor or few are being disruptive because so many others say so. A few demands telling an editor to DROPTHESTICK when they're not carrying one, or discrediting their choice of RS when it's the NYTimes, saying the article doesn't support their argument, or accusing an editor of PAs when all the editor did was ask them to stop being disruptive. It makes the accused doubt themselves, it's a mind game and it has a chilling effect, especially when one has a noose around their neck and already afraid to speak up. Tell a big enough lie long enough and it becomes the truth, and that is how editors get unfairly labeled, wrongful blocks & t-bans. Most already know that admins are quite busy, and don't always take the time to read all of the diffs in context, especially when the context is ;tldr. It is as easy for unbiased, non-partisan admins (the majority) to recognize and properly address gaslighting issues as it is for biased, partisan admins to dismiss it or be taken in by the gaslighting of a target, unknowingly or otherwise; therefore, WP's definition in the current guideline is very important, and could be expanded. In fact, I would support its inclusion in WP:Disruptive editing as well. Atsme Talk 📧 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::::Now that you and I (mea culpa!) have discussed this at such length, I feel the need to get back to the fact that this is an RfD, rather than a broader discussion about policy or about editing culture: what should be done with this redirect? To me, the very fact that there is so much else to be discussed demonstrates that the community does not yet have a consensus about the "thing" that this redirect would target to, whatever that "thing" might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- :::::4 days ago, the OP said "Please feel free to speedy close this" after Ivanvector explained the issue. Redirect errors like the one we're discussing are common because editors forget (or don't know) to update the redirect when a section title is renamed or moved. We can't speedy close this RfD now because other editors have weighed-in so we wait and then close. The correct [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING&diff=908004400&oldid=907993595 redirect] is in place but the RfD template is intercepting it. Suggestion - editors who think gaslighting may be relevant to other editing behavior can simply add a {{see also|WP:GASLIGHTING}} template to that article or section. Problem solved. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::::::In a funny way, I sort of do feel like this discussion is gaslighting me, because I've never agreed that this would be "problem solved", no matter how many times other editors say it's so. Then again, that's not really gaslighting, because none of you are intentionally trying to make me feel disoriented. However, quite a few of you are simply not really listening or engaging with what I've said. As things stand now, it's wrong to target this anywhere, which is why it should be deleted. Just as none of you are really gaslighting me, it would be pretty obnoxious for me to take all of you to ANI and complain that you are. Would any of you be OK with me reporting you now to ANI and saying that you are gaslighting me? I doubt it. That's why we should not have anything that gives a user who would really do that the ammunition. There is currently no valid target, so the redirect should be deleted. It can be recreated if and when a valid target exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- :::::::I am familiar with your editing as a WP editor, so the above doesn't go beyond making me laugh; however, I am wondering if maybe you are taking the movie too seriously. It is not a scientfic term, Dr. Tryptofish. I'm taking the remainder of my comment to your TP, or I risk being t-banned from RfDs for presenting an effective argument that is misconstrued as DONTLIKEIT or that I won't DROPTHESTICK. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 19:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::::::::Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - this seemed very simple to me and I kind of thought my earlier comment settled the issue, so apologies for being absent. I saw this as a simple navigation/housekeeping issue: we have exactly one spot in project space which explains gaslighting in the Wikipedia editing environment, the redirect pointed there before something happened on the target page, and so it's sensible to just fix it. For the concerns over whether that section is accurate, that should be discussed on talk for the guideline page, not here. It will be a good discussion to have, no doubt, and if it results in that section no longer referring to gaslighting, or a description being added in some other form on some other page, then we discuss what to do with the redirect. For the time being, we have a description of gaslighting which appears to have been stable for at least a year, and a redirect that points readers to explanatory information for what can be a jargon-y term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
::I'm beginning to regret that I ever got into this discussion. But admittedly, that's a sound argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Sorry, {{ul|Tryptofish}}, I didn't mean to cause you undue stress ;) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
::::No problems, {{u|Ivanvector}}. I said that mostly because of the parallel discussion at my talk page. So it goes.--Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
