Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system/Archive 1

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

New page creation

Following discussion on WT:POINT, I've re-created a page for "gaming the system". The small section in WP:POINT doesn't really cover gaming properly, and (see that talk page) there is some question whether it should. Not all "gaming" is "disruption to prove a point" and the two have very different modes of action in a lot of cases.

It's been around 2 years since this page was last examined in its own right (see below). I think a proper page that covers the term "gaming the system" and what exactly that signifies, will help to confirm the types of activities which are a problem, not all of which fit neatly under "disruption to prove a point".


For the record, the original page was created in June 2005 as a "definition stub", tagged as proposed policy, and rapidly merged into WP:POINT 3 weeks later. The talk page contents were:


Uh, this is not official policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this what the wonderfully vague (and I say that without any sarcasm) disruption clause of the blocking policy is for? --W(t) 03:15, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

I would agree. I don't feel that there is a need for this policy. I have heard others talk about "gaming the system" in different ways: one example I can give you is asking several editors who share your POV to comment and edit an article. So long as they are not editing "by proxy" (making your edits through their account) this is perfectly acceptable and I remember that the ArbCom said as much in one of the many cases I reviewed back when I was an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea, but I believe it also falls under WP:POINT. How about merging there? Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:38 (UTC)


Yet another means for bullies to arrogate more powers to themselves. There's a 3RR. It generally works and everyone who is here in good faith is happy with it. Yes, it's a pain in the butt when someone reverts three times and says, go on, do the fourth. (I've done it myself to my eternal shame.) But blocking someone for it is ridiculous. Just go get another editor to support you, revert alongside you and voila, the system-gamer is thwarted by the system. They'll tire of it long before you do. -- Grace Note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.242.187 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2005


With gaming the system still being a regular referrent in RFC, ANI and other dispute/conduct related pages, and a full description of gaming being inappropriate for WP:POINT, this page allows the issue of gaming to be explained and covered in more depth as a notable kind of bad-faith editing, and is linked to WP:POINT for formal policy references.

Hopefully it is popular consensus that the types of behavior described in the rewrite, are in fact against communal standards of behavior, and that whilst individual editors may deem them all forms of disruption, or all forms of making a point, or all forms of warring, in fact they all meet the definition of gaming the system in both its popular and its dispute process sense; and therefore a page expanding on WP:GAME and covering that sense more fully than WP:POINT can do, is probably helpful.

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I approve, and just happened to be looking for it :) --Quiddity 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I approve, having just been editing a site where all these things occur. Mind you, 5 of them have now been found to be socks, but it creates a very hostile and unpleasant atmosphere, makes the talkpages very long, dense, tedious and incomprehensible, and frightens off new editors. Each little individual act of gaming is difficult to present at ANI or the like and 'gaming' on ANI's then makes readers think '6 of 1, half a dozen of the other'. Only somebody prepared to wade through pages of it can see whats going on. This policy is needed. Fainites barley 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(Technically not a policy, but a behavioral guideline) FT2 (Talk | email) 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How did this become a guideline?

How did this page become a guideline? First it was a short stub (June 24, 2005 link), then noted as just a proposal (June 27, 2005 link), followed by a re-direct July 13, 2005 link), which. . .just suddenly became a guideline (July 2007 link). I don't see any discussion of the wording or just generally a consensus, which guidelines have to reflect. Wondering, R. Baley 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (Added) And specifically this, where is the consensus for (this diff)? R. Baley 09:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaming has had long established consensus as a Thing That Is Not Okay, for many years. It's been routinely cited as part of WP:POINT for a long, long time, and has strong "buy-in". The problem was, that behaviors recognized and apparently very widely considered "gaming" by experienced editors were not listed there... because they might have been gaming, but they weren't "disrupting to prove a point" (which was the topic of that page). So the section was moved to its own page, which it really needed anyway (with edit wars often being gamed).
As a widely agreed consensus with long standing policy status, the principle of "No gaming the system" was elevated to guideline, mostly since 1/ POINT itself has guideline and not policy status too, 2/ a behavioral standard is usually guideline not policy, 3/ the community was clearly endorsing of the principles as a behavioral expectation/guideline.
Consensus often is achieved by silence. Over several months the page has been reviewed. Editors and administrators have had opportunity in plenty to comment, and the sole edits have been to move the GAME link to this page (an endorsement) [1], enhance the page by bringing in related text from elsewhere [2], or to note it's valuable [3] [4].
Guideline status is a reflection of the community's view on the content. Several months on, there seems no (or little) significant dissent that these behaviors are 1/ indeed "gaming", and 2/ consistently not okay as such, as a behavior. And helpful to state as much with examples.
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Occasional exception to strictly forbidden

Sorry, but this is giving me a headache. Can someone explain to me how the nutshell says that gaming is "strictly forbidden" but the behavioral guideline states "occasional exception". It kinda makes my head spin. Thanks. Bstone 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the same applies to all other guidelines - WP:POINT for example. Disruption to prove a point, and gaming, are both forbidden. But the guideline description header template essentially is suggesting that application of guidelines in general, requires a degree of judgement. Any use? FT2 (Talk | email) 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting consensus

There is a discussion started about addressing those who would take entrenched positions and act in ways to block consensus. This could be done through "gaming the system". Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Blocking consensus. Input and opinions welcomed. Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Example 7 is convoluted and weird

The example numbered 7 is convoluted and weird. I think I know what it's going for, but it is just ambiguous enough to make it problematic. There certainly are cases where someone is right to remove a source because it's not peer-reviewed. There are other cases where it is not appropriate. It is not clear from the example that this is an instance of the latter. Maybe saying something like:

Remove a source from an article about a famous rock album with the rationale: "this source is not reliable because it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal".

That would be inappropriate because reliable sources for rock albums are not peer-reviewed journals. It's a question of particular context. There are, however, articles on arcane aspects of music theory which may in fact require peer-reviewed journal citations, for example, and may rightly excise fringe ideas that are not properly sourced.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirections

18-April-2008: The article has a redirection from WP:GAME, and I am adding "WP:GAMING" to also redirect to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New example: Revert for minor error

18-April-2008: I am adding an example for the common problem of reverting an entire revision due to minor errors, such as spelling or grammar, with a claim that the revision has errors. The spirit of Wikipedia is to tolerate defects in articles and make incremental improvements, as an attempt to salvage the existing contributions and expand them to be "encyclo-" (encompassing) for broader coverage. Reverting an entire revision due to a few minor or spelling errors is excessive. When an article is found to have a misspelled word, the article is not blanked as the solution. The appropriate response would be to fix minor errors, or at least tag sections for cleanup or citation-needed {cn}, rather than wholesale reverting of contributions. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Expand article examples but beware troublesome people

18-April-2008: Although the guideline on gaming helps explain what would be fair behavior in Wikipedia, it also alerts readers to fringe elements on the website. I personally warn: "Where there's smoke, there's fire in mindsets" - beware that violence begets violence: recognition of gaming doesn't mean that such gaming could be discussed, rationally, with those involved. Telling a mugger, "You're a mugger" won't stop a robbery. Perhaps just keep a mental note of the gaming that occurs, but be very diplomatic in discussing the issue, while limiting confrontation. Wikipedia offers little protection or privacy for the individual: beware that angering a person might cause that person to stalk your contributions and start hacking many other articles you've been writing. In many ways, Wikipedia is a virtual hornet's nest of potential problems, and many people find confrontation devolves into edit-wars and other wasted time, with the likely result of quitting in utter disgust. When gaming is detected, it might be much easier to band with other people, who share united notions of what is needed, and then return (perhaps much later) to address the issues and fix those articles. The guideline should be expanded with more detailed examples of what often happens on Wikipedia, but remember that reliance on the "letter of the law" is often the basis of gaming, rather than the solution to resolving issues of disagreement. Consider expanding the guideline about gaming as also just warnings of what can occur, rather than rules to cite. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding section levels of intent

18-April-2008: I added a general section clarifying the various levels of intent involved with aspects of gaming the system. The point is to downplay the tendency to vilify people who might be using gaming tactics without a deep-seated attitude of malicious intent. Specifically (on 18-Apr-2008), I added the following:

"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 pre-meditated, 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 (see: Wikipedia:Mediation) or perhaps even, in extreme cases, private arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration). The risks of continued involvement should be carefully considered, especially if the intent seems overly severe or obsessive/compulsive behavior."   (from article section "Various levels of intent" )

I have added that paragraph to emphasize the range, from simple unaware copying of tactics that worked for other editors, to a potentially escalated situation of confrontation, as a risk perhaps better handled, in extreme cases, by private arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration). The whole concept of "gaming the system" involves a wide range of motives, so I felt that clarification and warning was needed due to the enormous broad scope of all the situations that are covered by the guideline. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

In this famous case of deletion there was a list of editors by number of total barnstars. Obviously, it got deleted for being total crap and un-encyvlopedial. Yesterday, this caught my eye and I was thinking: this is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system, etc, other wikipedia articles. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Example: Double-teaming on 3RR

18-April-2008: I am adding another example of gaming where multiple people enter into an edit-war, sharing the revert count, to trap another person into reverting 4 times, violating WP:3RR and being banned 24 hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So who then would be guilty here? Would the "victim" who is "trapped" be equally as guilty as all the rest? mike4ty4 (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

another game type: volume

I honestly don't know what level of activity is disruptive. But this is a new area of disruptive editing that has been tested by User:TTN, even if I don't know what that limit is, or if TTN has crossed it. To assume good faith, I don't even know if TTN believes that he's crossed it. Judging by the way that ArbCom is moving on this issue, they don't know what that limit is either. So we have to define that limit ourselves, and remove all doubt: for me, for you, for TTN, for ArbCom.

Obviously, people are going to have reasonable disagreements about what a disruptive level of activity is. Some of us check Wikipedia every day, and to see a few AFDs in one area of content per day gives us ample time to look for sources, and draw a conclusion one way or another about an article's notability/verifiability. Others aren't so active, and need time to be able to adequately respond, and rescue an article if need be. There might be other kinds of actions that are time sensitive, but I'm not sure -- usually if there's the potential to revert, then being bold/fast isn't particularly terrible.

Even if we haven't been able to draw a bright line in the past, we ought to draw a bright line now, for the future, to avoid any ambiguity or vagueness. I'm tired of discussions that fall back to WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IHATEIT to determine disruptiveness. We should all be ready to admit that there IS a line somewhere, even if some of us would draw a stricter line than others, right?

Let's discuss. Randomran (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a line should be drawn. Going a bit away from the disruptive level first, perhaps inspiration should come from some of the other areas of editor article reviews. At WP:FAC, an editor can have one article nominated at a time, until the FA is mostly done. Ditto at WP:FAR. Both are processes where its felt that an editor can not adequately address the responses if they are splitting time between multiple nominations. Of course, FA does require more interactivity than AfD, however I do feel a nominator should be able to actually participate in an AfD discussion, not just nominate and run. So looking some more, WP:PR, editors can only do one per day, but can have up to four open at a time. Again, PR is more intensive than AfD, but it seems like a closer guideline to what we're looking for here. ~thinking~ So, looking at these and keeping in mind that often times AfD is less interactive, I would say a limit of 5 per day would seem like a good line. However, I think if we were going to do that kind of limit, it would go at the AfD process. For what level is disruptive? For those who may want to salvage/defend an article, particularly projects the article is within the realm of, I would say having 10 AfDs within a topic area gets hard to deal with. Of course, the problem here is that I think it would introduce yet a new form of gaming: if we say, 10 per topic is disruptive, we'll get 9 per topic area per day, and still end up with an overload....not sure any of this rambling is helpful at all :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Rambling is more helpful than simply pulling a number out of thin air, IMO. I've seen some good justifications for numbers from you. Another thing to keep in mind: Risker said that half a dozen nominations per day is not disruptive. I know some people will disagree with that. But I don't think any of the arbitrators are unreasonable people, and so reasonable people can honestly say that 6 isn't disruptive. I think we can work with that number, give or take... and it seems consistent with what you're saying (5 per day is a good limit). I also think it's tough to enforce it on a community basis, since you can't blame multiple editors when their combined efforts coincidentally bug some people, and also it's uncertain how we define a topic area -- task force? Wikiproject? Category? Let's focus on the actions of single editors. Randomran (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a limit on cleanup would work without a limit on influx. Nor do I see how we could reasonably set a limit on how many articles on a given subject are created in a given period. So I guess I don't see how this would work. Of course, there's always the "find sufficient independent and reliable sources before hitting the create button and don't hit it if you can't find them" approach, which solves both issues quite well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there is a line for volume involved, though I would not want to draw it at a firm number, as that would simply lead to gaming by going one lower. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The real problem is that the process described at WP:BEFORE does not seem to be followed in such cases. If an editor just browses a category and then uses Twinkle or some similar tool to nominate an article then this is an easy action, one can nominate lots of articles quickly and we get the problem described. If the proper process is followed - reading the article, checking for sources, considering the alternatives, engaging in discussion, consulting projects and so on - then this is much more time consuming and a good faith editor will not be able to nominate many articles unless they make a full time job of it. So, we should insist on good faith efforts to follow WP:BEFORE and Speedy Keep articles for which this has not been done. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the key is going to be coming up with a number where even if someone pushes up against it, we can live with it. It might mean having two numbers: a number per day, and a number per week. Or a number per day, and a limit on the number of active AFDs. I don't think we can rely on WP:BEFORE, although I unequivocally support WP:BEFORE. First of all, there's no way to prove if someone isn't searching for sources -- except perhaps if they have a track record where 50% of their noms result in keep. Second of all, a patient person can easily do a research check through a whole category of 12 articles, over the span of an hour or two. Third of all, some articles are so clearly not notable that you could fulfill WP:BEFORE almost instantaneously. Although some articles will turn up false positives that you have to explore before you can conclude it's not notable, other articles will turn up nothing at all. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Any hightened level of activity has the potential to overwhelm the community, but it's possible to feel overwhelmed by the number of fiction AfD noms just as it is by the mass creation (by enthusiastic individuals or collectively) of super-bad fiction subarticles that clearly don't pass the inclusion guidelines like WP:N and WP:SPINOUT for many months. Should just the editors seeking deletion be restricted, or also the people creating bad articles? Since about a hundred articles get AfDed each day, I think we can easily handle 5 (fiction) AfDs by a single editors per day, but we should also/still encourage mergers, redirects, and prods where appropriate. DRV and userfication can help if an editor doesn't have the time to improve an article to acceptable standards during an AfD. But if I had to draw a hard line, it would be 10 AfDs by a single editor per day and encourage him to leave the other articles for later (maybe similar articles can get merged/redirected/prodded afterwards, citing the results of the AfDs then). – sgeureka t•c 17:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a limit on AfD creation.. as long as they are not junk nominations. In gneneral, if the community is agreeing with you 80-90 % of the time, I think that's pretty much the definition of non-disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a point where there are so many AFDs that you're not getting an accurate sample of the community's viewpoints? That people are missing AFDs in the rush, or they're soo overwhelmed that they can't do a legitimate search for sources? I'm not saying any specific editor has crossed the line. But certainly you can see that such a line exists? Randomran (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There'd have to be something with the word hundred afterwards in my view (yes, I know not a lot of people will agree with me), but an average of six a day (which is causing the hullabaloo currently?) being "overwhelming"????? Are we joking here? SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is Wikipedians have different activity levels. If you check Wikipedia multiple times a day, 6 a day is easy. But if it leads to 30-40 in a week, you have to keep in mind that some editors only devote a few hours per week to Wikipedia. For editors who only pop in a few times a week it asks them to take time off work/school/family just to do proper searches for sources, to judge whether an AFD on notability/verifiability is warranted. When you think about it that way, "a hundred" would just be completely unreasonable. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Five days is plenty of time, and it's not like if something is deleted or merged, if you do eventually find independent notability/verifiability, it can be undone fairly easily. It's a red herring to say that this unfairly impacts the casual editor. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Five days is totally insufficient for a volunteer project with no overall deadline. It is far easier to add sources and improve an article over time that already exists than having to start over or go through deletion review. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Five days is more than enough when the decision is reversible at any point. If you miss it in five days, and it gets deleted, and then three weeks later you find several great sources that would support an article, you can do that. You don't even have to start over, many admins, including me, will userfy an article for you in this scenario so that you can use those sources to improve it. I'll reiterate, we cannot have a hard limit on the amount of cleanup permissible without a similar hard limit on the amount of creation permissible. I see no conceivable way to limit the second, nor that it is desirable to do so, but that means we cannot limit the first. Realistically, it is comparatively uncommon that an article is initially deleted but appropriate sources are found later. It is much more common that what is deleted, should be deleted. This has been shown by the outcomes at AfD being frequently favorable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Who says that we shouldn't limit article creation? I'm sure we can warn someone who creates 30 articles just as easily as someone who AFDs 30 articles. The question is coming up with a number that everyone can live with, on both sides of the debate. I agree that parity is an issue. Randomran (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To sum up discussion so far, we have some people saying there should be no limit, and we have some people who want to reform the AFD process altogether. I think those both take us further away from settling this small issue. TTN has been nominating at a pace of roughly 6 per day (with a lot of lulls in between, I think). People are genuinely split on the issue. Some people think 6 is fine. Some people think 6 is way over the line. There's even been a split at ArbCom: some have said there's no problem here, and some have advised TTN to tone down his pace. I've seen two people in this discussion throw out the number 5 as a compromise. I imagine there are some people who wouldn't be satisfied with that, though, and would want a tigher restriction. But let's start with 5. How do people feel about 5? Randomran (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Hell no. To any number. Let's not get stupid. It's an obscenity test. When rational folks see it, they know what it is. This is nothing of the sort. Let's not set arbitrary numbers here. SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they don't. We've been arguing about it. ArbCom can't figure it out. If we don't come up with a number, this issue will keep coming back to arbcom again and again, with people saying "it's obscene" versus "it's acceptable" versus "it's applaudable". It's not a question of obscenity anymore. It's a question of what everyone can live with, so we can move on and get back to cleanup. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I will be honest and up front, here. There is no number (beyond the patently ridiculous, see my "hundred at the end" comment above) that I can "live with". And there's at least several others in this discussion who feel the same way. SirFozzie (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
So you can live with repeated trips to ArbCom? I'm getting kind of sick of them, to be honest. And at a certain point, there's a good chance it will succeed in getting an arbitrary sanction, just so ArbCom can get people to stop bringing the complaint every other month. It's not a guarantee, but can you live with that risk? Randomran (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that at least in my eyes, those repeatedly and tendentiously bringing TTN to ArbCom despite his compliance with Wikipedia's core policies are more sanctionable then TTN is. SirFozzie (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith minor edits

At the end of the types of vandalism list, for gaming the system the description says in part, "Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny." However, this main article does not discuss marking bad faith edits as minor at all.

I am watching an established editor who has marked two major edits as minor; one was caught right away and he was called out on it, while another went unnoticed for months. If he does it a third time, I want to report him, but I'm not sure if "gaming the system" is the proper policy to cite when the time comes. Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How to Complain about WP:GAME without getting into trouble??

This page really has to explain this because if you say someone is playing WP:GAME they can charge WP:personal attacks and get you in some sort of trouble, I'd assume. Can one only do in most general way if one thinks it's going on? Or in arbitration? I think a short explanation of how to use this complaint properly as a charge would help. Carol Moore 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

  • In general, your best hope is in support from other people, those who would agree that "gaming" is in progress. Very often, if several people can shine light into dark areas, the evil will vanish. It's uncanny, but just like it says in the Bible, typically works. The word "diabolo" meaning devil has origins in the term libeler, as a person who attacks the reputation. Note how the troublemakers will try to impune the character of their opponents, in the manner of The Libeler. The problem is not in policies violated, but the totally contentious attitude of troublemakers. Also beware the Internet trolls who love to win a good trivial "fight" often because they are losing at work or home. Perhaps join a WikiProject which values civility, and beware some groups that are actually "inter-wiki-city gangs" of like-minded troublemakers or rewriting articles for other websites. I view the Wikipedia policies as signs of smoke that reveal when you're playing with fire. Don't forget the reality of wiki-psychos censoring some information, or the incident where Microsoft paid people to spin computer articles: no amount of policy-quoting would deter such people from their agenda of concealing true issues, whether psycho-obsessive or paid results. Look past the sword and look to the heart to see the intent: anyone can get a bigger weapon or quote a stronger policy, but what does that really win? Above all, keep a sense of humor about the Wackopedia and the interesting characters you'll meet along the way. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Example of Bad-faith negotiation

" Example: Arguing that it is covered in another article, an editor negotiates a reluctant concensus to remove WP:RS well-verified material from one article. The editor then deletes the material from the second article."

Anybody have any problems with this as an example of bad-faith negotiation ? Naturally, the material meets all the criteria for inclusion in both articles. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

'Retribution' Deliberately reverting/vandalizing an editor's edits in one article in retribution for an edit dispute in another.

Added 11.'Retribution' Deliberately reverting/vandalizing an editor's edits in one article in retribution for an edit dispute in another.

It happens. I can give at least one example. Nucleophilic (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing the policy and then quoting your change

I think this should be expanded to cover the irritating case of people changing a policy or guideline, and then quoting it as if it had been there all along, especially when the change in question is a dramatic departure from the page's previous contents.

The thing is that I'm not sure exactly how to present it. There are times when changing an advice page during a dispute is appropriate. For example, if you discover in a dispute that a guideline confuses people because some word means different things to different people (perhaps a British vs American issue, or a word that simply has too many meanings to be clear), then clarifying it is a Good Thing. Similarly, if you discover that a low-traffic guideline contains some overlooked vandalism, then you ought to change it ASAP, irrespective of any current dispute (especially if you're one of the "regulars" at the guideline, so you really do know what it's supposed to say).

But changing a page for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in a dispute is a Bad Thing.

I'm a bit fried at the moment, so if someone else has ideas about how to say this, then please feel free to make suggestions or bold expansion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What about "contentious statement or word[cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite]"?

I see this case a lot during informal mediation, where one editor wants something to remain, and backs it up with 7 citations straight in a row. I call it cite-stacking (you may too, but you risk me feeling crappy and unoriginal by saying so :-p). Or is this more of a POINT?

Specifically, I see it happening where a statement/word (don't get me started) passes V and sort of passes NPOV (sure doesn't pass WP:UNDUE), but consensus is kinda up in the air (and probably made worse by it). Xavexgoem (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess once a sentence has many citations, the number of citations can only increase, because each source found that supports the sentence would make a new citation, while any source found that opposes would not be added to the article because no editors are impulsive(in a conscientious way) enough to add a sentence with 1 citation opposing a sentence next to it with 10 citations. But this's off topic & has nothing to do w/ gaming the system. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"...to thwart the aims of Wikipedia"

"Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia."

That last clause sounds far too restrictive, considering the amount of game playing by editors convinced of their own righteousness in "improving Wikipedia". Why not something like

"Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to manipulate the system for a desired outcome against consensus or policy."

--Calton | Talk 09:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example for disruptive behavior section

There is an editor who often brings up my being reported to WP:ARB9/11 in unrelated disputes and stating that this proves I push conspiracy theories so I shouldn't be trusted for anything else. He never mentions that the case was closed after no evidence of disruptive or POV editing on my part was found. Another editor continually brings up his "win" against me in a two year old RSN as a way to discredit my arguments by stating his win proves I push POV. Despite "winning" the RSN 6-4 he invariably states he won it with a unanimous consensus implying that I was the sole supporter. This editor had been taken to the etiquette board twice by other editors for misrepresenting the RSN and told not to bring up past disputes to support his case in unrelated articles. In a current dispute he has also been asked not to mention it yet continues to bring it up, usually in conjunction with his Playing victim. None of the Wikipedia policies seem to be specific enough to prevent this behavior. I suggest adding an additional example to this section so it can be cited to offenders.

Quote:Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.
Suggestion: Example: Bringing up an editors involvement in past disputes and using that involvement, without context, as proof of bad behaviour in order to discredit the editor in an unrelated dispute.
Thoughts? Wayne (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MMORPG

Wikipedia:MMORPG

That's hilarious. Try this: 'Wikipedia:Nintendo'!

Dude00007, Ph. D. (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

Just to make sure I understand. Gaming the system is basically Trolling. Going around (usually on the internet) trying to start fights just for the sake of starting a fight. Correct?--Guy who couldn't get a username (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually reading the essay answers that question (short version: no).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Report

Where can I report a moderator for: "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction."? I can't find this information anywhere... 143.176.62.228 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI, generally. Depends on the nature of the issue. Not sure what you mean by "moderator"; that's not a term we use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Should WP:Verbage be linked as disruptive behaviour?

A number of essays have been linked on this page, of which WP:Verbage is one — it covers the writing of overly-long responses to discourage discourse. Should it be included or not on this page? CFCF 💌 📧 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that two editors have already removed your undiscussed insertion of the WP:VERBAGE [sic] material as WP:CREEP, and the essay itself is unlikely to survive Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verbage, obviously no.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
No, one editor has removed this, you — the other editor removed a different addition. Of course if it is userified this can be considered moot — but it seems far to early to speculate about that. CFCF 💌 📧 18:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
[5]. I'm pretty sure Andrew Davidson can speak for himself as to intent, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have opened a WP:ANEW request about this editwarring and forumshopping.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC) I closed it as moot, since the EW is unlikely to continue with multiple editors objecting to these VERBAGE insertions here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I confirm my continued opposition to adding WP:Verbage here. Writing at length may well be vexatious but it's a different issue from gaming the system, which is about exploiting Wikipedia's rules. Accordingly, I have reverted today's attempt to add it again. Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of process

The section on abuse of process could do with a bit more explanation. My focus though is more on what changes could be made to block abusers of process. I have a few suggestions but am not sure where to float them. Is Village Pump/ideas most appropriate? Or somewhere more specialized. For example in a dispute any editor can get a friend or someone they have networked with to close a discussion in order to gag the debate and without explaining the closure. To many the closure will seem to have come from some authority but not necessarily so. Should editors have that power? Jed Stuart (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

unnecessary words?

For me the article is hard to read. It seems to me that some of it is not necessary and a bit jarring to read. The first paragraph after the lead I would delete entirely:

An editor gaming the system is seeking to use 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 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.

Does it say anything at all that is not better said in the lead? If nobody objects I will delete it. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I object. It's perfectly clear. --Tarage (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed; that material isn't unclear in any way, and explains what this is about and why it matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

GAMING/WIKILAWYER fix at USERPAGE

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Minor GAMING/WIKILAWYER fix, which is relevant to this guideline's application to another guideline's wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

WIKILAWYER tweak to WP:NOT

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Change to "Memorial", on application of this guideline's premise to some policy wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Gaming of Naming

I would like to add a paragraph to this guideline having to do with attempting to game the titles of articles, either in Articles for Creation or in Articles for Deletion, submitting multiple versions of a draft or article about the same person (or company) using slightly different forms of the name, like Ralph Zwogli, Ralph A. Zwogli, and Ralph Zwogli (businessman). Various forms of this are common. I won't discuss some of them because they can made into bean salad. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Note, it isn't gaming the system unless there is intent to do so. If a new eitor, not understanding how Wikipedia works, tries to post a draft under several titles, thinking that the problem is the exact title, that isn't gaming. On the other hand, if soemone does that hoping to escape scrutiny, and get a reviewer with a different view of things, or hoping that previous deleion discussions will go unnoticed, that would be gaming. It is not always easy to tell the difference between ignorance and malice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. An experienced reviewer can tell the difference. A sandbox and a draft is good faith. Two forms of a name is usually gaming unless the subject uses different names. Yes.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Gaming of permissions

The following behavior happens often enough that I think it deserves a mention in this guideline:

Gaming of permissions
  1. Making unconstructive edits to raise one's user access level.
    Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles or moves a promotional draft to article space.
    Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles.

Feedback and alternative suggestions are welcome. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

plus Added in Special:Diff/986309158. — Newslinger talk 01:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Gaming_the_system/Archive_1&oldid=1149080681"