Tachyony: Imported page

2021-12-04T19:42:54Z

Imported page

New page

{{short description|Wikipedia policy page}}
{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{redirect|WP:GAME|WikiProject Video games|WP:VG|WikiProject Games|WP:GAMES|WikiProject Board and table games|WP:BTG|Wikipedia games|WP:WGAMES|the "game" of deleting articles|WP:WHACAMOLE|the joke page|WP:MMORPG|the Wikipedia Adventure|WP:The Wikipedia Adventure}}
{{subcat guideline|behavioral guideline|Gaming|WP:GAME|WP:GAMING}}
{{policy in a nutshell|align=center|Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.}}
{{guideline list}}
'''[[Gaming the system]]''' means deliberately using [[Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines|Wikipedia policies]] in [[bad faith]] to thwart the [[WP:Aim|aims of Wikipedia]]. Gaming the system may represent an [[abuse of process]], [[Wikipedia:disruptive editing|disruptive editing]], or otherwise evading the spirit of community [[WP:consensus|consensus]]. Editors typically game the system to [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|make a point]], to further an [[Wikipedia:edit warring|edit war]], or to enforce a specific [[WP:NPOV|non-neutral point of view]].

If an editor finds a [[loophole]] or trick that allows them to evade community standards or [[WP:Administrator abuse|misuse administrator tools]], it should not be treated the same as a [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] mistake. However, [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals|Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive]]. A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both {{em|good-faith}} mistakes and {{em|bad-faith}} games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith.

== The meaning of "gaming the system"==
An editor ''gaming the system'' is seeking to use [[WP:POLICY|policy]] in [[bad faith]], by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda. An editor is [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] if they are using a few words of policy to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, to attack a genuinely policy-based stance by willfully misapplying Wikipedia policies, or to derail Wikipedia processes.

Gaming the system may include:
* [[WP:Wikilawyering|Wikilawyering]], [[Wiktionary:pettifogger|pettifogging]], and otherwise using the {{em|[[Letter and spirit of the law|letter]]}} of policy to violate the broader {{em|principles}} of the policy.
* [[Filibuster]]ing the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.
* Attempting to twist Wikipedia sanctions or processes to harass other editors.

In each case, willfulness or knowing is important. Misuse of policy, guidelines or practice is not gaming if it is based upon a genuine mistake. But it may well be, if it is deliberate, where the editor continues to game policy even when it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware.

Actions that game the system may also overlap with other policies:
* Misusing Wikipedia processes in order to be intentionally [[Wiktionary:invidious#Adjective|invidious]] towards another editor, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming. However it is more often categorized as [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|using Wikipedia to prove a point]] or [[abuse of process]].
* Using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the "evidence" for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action. This is more often categorized as a breach of the guideline to [[WP:Assume good faith|assume good faith]], and in particular, repeated unjustified "warnings" may also be viewed as a breach of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]].
* If gaming is also knowingly used as a basis to impugn another editor or to mischaracterize them as bad-faith editors, then this may also violate the policy of [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]].

Disruption of any kind merits being warned (or [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]]) by an administrator. Violating the principles of Wikipedia's behavior guidelines may prejudice the decision of [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].

==Examples==
{{shortcut|WP:GAMETYPE}}
There are several types of gaming the system. The essence of gaming is the willful and knowing misuse of policies or processes. The following is an (incomplete) list of examples. Actions that are similar to the below, where there is no evidence of intent to act improperly, are usually not considered gaming.
=== Gaming the use of [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] ===
{{shortcut|WP:PLAYPOLICY|WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT|WP:FORCEDINTERPRET}}
# {{anchor|WIKILAWYER}}Bad-faith [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] – arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy.
#: Example: Posting a neutral notice that does not violate [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|the policy on canvassing]], while using a different set of notifications to lure a partisan audience to view that neutral notice.
# {{anchor|PLAYPOLICY}}Playing policies against each other.
#:Example: Saying you refuse to remove content that violates [[WP:VERIFIABILITY|the policy on verifiability]], because that content is protected by the policy that "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored|Wikipedia is not censored]]".
# {{anchor|CHERRYPICKING}}Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy (or cherry-picking one policy to apply but wilfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy.
#: Example: Adding content that is restricted under the policy on [[Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not]], while cherry-picking the words that "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]]" to evade those restrictions.
# {{anchor|SPURIOUSPROTECT}}Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification, or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy.
#: Example: Saying that content meets [[WP:VERIFIABILITY|the policy on verifiability]] because it is [[WP:CITE|cited]] to a source, when in fact the source is not [[WP:RS|reliable]], or the content twists the source's [[WP:Neutral point of view|point of view]]. ({{crossref|See {{section link|WP:Neutral point of view|Due and undue weight}}.)}}
# {{anchor|FORCEDINTERPRET}}Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.
#:Example: Presenting a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays|Wikipedia essay]] that was written by a single editor as though it were a consensus policy.

=== Gaming the consensus-building process ===
{{shortcut|WP:STONEWALL|WP:ONEHANDGIVES|WP:FILIBUSTER}}
{{redirect|WP:STONEWALL|the Wikipedia essay on status quo stonewalling|WP:STONEWALLING}}
# {{anchor|Stonewall|Filibuster|Filibustering}}{{vanchor|Stonewalling}} or [[filibuster]]ing – {{em|repeatedly}} pushing a viewpoint with which the [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] of the community {{em|clearly}} does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.
#:Example: An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in [[WP:POLICY|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]].
#:Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a [[WP:TAGTEAM|tagteam]]) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.
#:{{cross-ref|See also the policy [[WP:Disruptive editing]], especially on [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|"refusal to get the point"]]; and the essays {{section link|WP:What is consensus?|Not unanimity}}, {{section link|Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process|No one is obligated to satisfy you}}, [[WP:Status quo stonewalling]], and {{section link|WP:BRD misuse|Filibusterers}}}}
# {{anchor|BADFAITHNEG}}{{vanchor|Bad-faith negotiating}} – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.
#:Example: An editor negotiates a consensus to remove [[WP:RS|well-verified material]] from one article, because it is already covered in a second article. Afterward, the editor deletes the material from the second article.
#:Example: Editors reach a consensus. The author of the final agreed text is supposed to post it, but never does. Weeks later, a second editor tires of waiting and posts a modified version, which the first editor immediately reverts.
#:Example: An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the [[WP:CCPOL|core content policies]].{{shortcut|WP:FIXFIRST}}
# {{anchor|REMOVELARGE}}{{vanchor|Removing a large addition for a minor error}}. If the error is minor, then [[wp:preserve|fix it]] (or at least [[Template:Inline cleanup tags|tag it]] for clean-up). [[WP:IMPERFECT|Perfection is not required]], and Wikipedia is built through incremental improvement.
#:Example: An editor adds a paragraph of [[WP:VERIFIABLE|verifiable information]], but it is removed entirely because of a typographical error that could easily be fixed.
#:Example: An editor performs page-wide, uncontroversial copy editing and code cleanup, but another editor thinks some ostensibly minor changes subtly altered the meaning of two sentences, and so reverts several hours of work instead of just the two disputed changes.{{shortcut|WP:GASLIGHT|WP:GASLIGHTING}}
#{{anchor|GASLIGHTING|Gaslighting|Gaslight}}Employing [[gaslighting]] tactics – such as history [[False attribution|re-writing]], reality [[Denialism|denial]], [[Handwave|misdirection]], baseless [[Ipse dixit|contradiction]], [[Psychological projection|projection]] of one's own foibles onto others, [[Proof by assertion|repetition]], or [[Red herring|off-topic rambling]] – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord.
#: Examples: denying that you [[Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide|posted what you did]], suggesting someone [[Straw man|agreed to something they did not]], [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point"|pretending]] your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|policy actually says]] or means, [[Fallacy of equivocation|prevaricating about the obvious meaning]] of a claim, or [[Wikipedia:How to lose|refusing to concede]] when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus.

=== Gaming of [[WP:TITLE|article titles]], review processes, and deletion processes ===
{{shortcut|WP:GAMENAME}}
# Using different or variant forms or spellings of an article title.
#: Example: Submitting multiple drafts with almost the same title to [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]], such as [[Draft:Ralph Zwogli]], [[Draft:Ralph A. Zwogli]], and [[Draft:Ralph Zwogli (businessman)]]
#: Example: Submitting a draft or article with almost the same title as a recently deleted article
# Use of [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] accounts to conceal a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]].
#: Example: Submitting a [[WP:BLP|biography]] from a [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] account after a previous submission has been declined because it is seen to be an [[WP:AUTOBIO|autobiography]].
# Gaming the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] process.
#: Example: Removing the record of previous reviews (which says not to remove it) and resubmitting a draft.
#: Example: Resubmitting a draft that has been Rejected by removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer.

=== Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior ===
{{anchor|Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior|reason=Old section title, may be linked to.}}{{shortcut|WP:SANCTIONGAME|WP:SANCTIONGAMING}}
# {{anchor|MISCHARATERIZING|MISCHARATERISING|MISCHARACTERIZE|MISCHARACTERISE}}Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.
#: Example: Refusing to provide a proper [[WP:CITE|citation]] to an editor looking to [[WP:V|verify]] your claim, and accusing the editor of being disruptive for making repeated requests. Citations should be accurate so that other editors may verify them.
# {{anchor|WALKBACK|WALKINGBACK}}"Walking back" a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing.
#:Example: An editor responds to a disagreement by saying, "You're obviously wrong, wrong, wrong. Did you even pass grade 9 history?" Later, they defend this statement as a good-faith question about the other editor's education.
# {{anchor|BORDERLINING|BORDERLINE}}"Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
#: Example: An editor never violates the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.
# {{anchor|RETRIBUTION}}Retribution: Deliberately reverting an editor's edits in one article in retaliation for a dispute in another.
#: Example: Editor A reverts an edit made by Editor B because it did not adhere to a neutral point of view and they did not provide a reliable source. Editor B starts a discussion on the talk page in which Editor A participates, but the discussion fails to generate consensus. Later on, Editor B reverts a well-sourced, neutral addition that Editor A made, saying it did not comply with the Manual of Style.
# {{anchor|PLAYINGVICTIM|PLAYVICTIM}}Playing victim: Violating a rule and at the same time claiming that others are in violation of the same or a closely related rule. Also known as hypocrisy.
#: Example: Editor A posts uncivil comments while at the same time accusing Editor B of uncivil behavior, demanding sanctions and citing policies that Editor A clearly violates.

=== Gaming of permissions ===
{{shortcut|WP:PGAME}}
# Making unconstructive edits to raise one's [[WP:UAL|user access level]].
#:Example: A new editor makes 10 [[H:DUMMY|dummy edits]] to become [[WP:ACONF|autoconfirmed]], and then makes controversial changes to [[WP:SEMI|semi-protected]] articles or [[WP:MV|moves]] a promotional draft to article space.
#:Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a [[H:SANDBOX|sandbox]] to become [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]], and then makes controversial changes to [[WP:ECP|extended confirmed protected]] articles.

==Spurious legalisms==
Since [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy|Wikipedia is not]] a court of law, many legal procedures or terms have no bearing on Wikipedia. Typically, [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|wikilawyering]] raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. Occasionally wikilawyering may raise legitimate questions, including fairness, but often it serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution. For example, it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sockpuppets]], and it is not a defense that none of the sockpuppets which emerge were named in the request for arbitration.

==Various levels of intent==
Use of the term "gaming the system" should be done with caution, as it can be interpreted as an [[WP:AOBF|accusation of bad-faith editing]]. Although users might engage in the practices described above, that activity should not be considered proof of malicious intent. The actual level of intent should also be considered separately, as to whether the action was premeditated, or spur-of-the-moment, or merely copying an older tactic that seemed effective for other editors in the past. The term ''gaming the system'' is not meant to vilify those involved, with the word "gaming" also referring to playful activity in the manner of a game of sport. The goal is to focus on Wikipedia activities as a serious effort to improve articles, not an arena for playing games and sparring with opponents as a form of amusement. Judging intent might include discussions with others, rather than escalate the situation as an issue for direct confrontation. The situation might warrant special mediation {{crossref|(see [[WP:Mediation]])}} or perhaps even, in extreme cases, formal arbitration {{crossref|(see [[WP:Arbitration]])}}. The risks of continued involvement should be carefully considered, especially if the intent seems overly severe or [[Obsessive–compulsive disorder|obsessive–compulsive]] behavior. However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not [[WP:Casting aspersions|cast aspersions]] about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. Wikipedia has a variety of [[WP:Noticeboards|noticeboards]] for dealing with problematic editing behavior, patterns of which tend to speak for themselves when properly [[Help:Diff|''diff''ed]] with evidence.

==Abuse of process==
[[Abuse of process]] is related to gaming. It involves knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended. Abuse of process is [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]], and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, [[WP:No personal attacks|personal attack]], or [[WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|disruption to make a point]]. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith.

What is "intent", consciously or otherwise, and what actually is "good"-enough-"faith" must also be clearly defined. Only then, the definers's power and status position must also be openly noted when making such any determinations. The common assumptions that what is claimed as "communally agreed" must include more than a select group, and thus is also a questionable number, perhaps unverifiable, and even if is said to be any legitimate majority of contributors{{snd}}like those who were recently allowed to write on Wikipedia. Vague words of idealistic concepts are dangerous and may be misleading from what is then experienced in actuality when reading or writing on Wikipedia.

==See also==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* [[Gaming the system]]
* [[Unclean hands]]
** [[Maxims of equity#He who comes into equity must come with clean hands|He who comes into equity must come with clean hands]]
* {{section link|Wikipedia:Consensus#Forum shopping}} (policy on seeking out a supportive forum)
* [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] (guideline)
* [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]] (guideline)
* [[Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose]] (humorous essay)
* [[Wikipedia:Griefing]] (essay)
* [[Wikipedia:Maldoror's Conjecture]] (essay)
* [[Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia]] (policy supplement)
* [[Wikipedia:Policy shopping]] (essay)
* [[Wikipedia:POV railroad]] (essay)
* [[Wikipedia:Tag team]] (essay)
* [[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read]] (essay)
}}
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}

Wikipedia:Gaming the system - Revision history

Tachyony: Imported page