Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gaslighting

Gaslighting

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. T.H.Reesh (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Janweh64 (talk · contribs)
3. Masem (talk · contribs)
4. Narsil (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. {{Gaslighting}}
2. {{Gaslighting#In_politics}}

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Gaslighting#Trump section
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gaslighting.23In_politics

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Does the disputed paragraph [Trump section #In politics] violate Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy?
2. Disagreement over sources in disputed paragraph being reliable due to statements by the American Psychiatric Association.
3. Is this paragraph in this article a case of WP:RECENTISM?
4. Is this paragraph in this article showing bias by listing only one specific U.S. politician?
5. Need a politically unbiased moderator to bring this several months long dispute to a resolution.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1

A longer list of involved editors/reverters/commenters: EvergreenFir, Snooganssnoogans, Orlisgal, Epipelagic, Malerooster, General Ization, 76.64.32.197, 2604:2000:614A:2B00:B81A:2D64:9F62:F9AE, Morphdog, 135.84.56.37, The Anome, DynaGirl, Ewulp, Bonadea, 207.144.253.59, Anaxial, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, 98.174.62.138, McGeddon, Mifter, 129.81.81.151 and more... (I seem dubiously outnumbered in this mediation. Should they also be pinged? I don't know this is my first mediation.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Janweh64 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Response: I orginally had EvergreenFir, Malerooster, Jm3 and the Anome included in this mediation, but removed them on second thought due to either: 1) how much they actually contributed in the amount of discussion to this topic OR 2) how long ago they were actually involved in this discussion. Narsil put in the most discussion on the Talk page, so he alone stayed by default. However, I can add any of the editors, if you wish. We still have 4 days left for Masem, or any of the others you wish to add, to agree to mediation before it automatically begins. T.H.Reesh (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@T.H.Reesh: We should add EvergreenFir and Sławomir Biały to balance it out.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Agree. (Janweh64) (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Agree. — Narsil (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. I'm going to reject this case on the authority given to me under prerequisite to 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." Because there's not been any recent discussion at the article talk page, but quite a bit at the BLP Noticeboard, it's hard to determine who the necessary parties would be in this case. Parties at BLPN may be there simply for giving abstract advice and would not interfere if a a contrary consensus was reached here and then applied at the article. However, more than that, in light of the strong feelings involved here this seems like the kind of dispute which would best be served by bringing it before the entire community in the form of a RFC at the article talk page (with a notice at the BLPN discussion) and I'm going to recommend that be tried before seeking mediation. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)