Misplaced Pages

:Gaming the system: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:57, 18 July 2007 editFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits expand explanation← Previous edit Revision as of 10:39, 18 July 2007 edit undoFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits →Examples: expandNext edit →
Line 26: Line 26:
:* Bad faith ] - arguing the word of policy to defeat the spirit of policy :* Bad faith ] - arguing the word of policy to defeat the spirit of policy
:* Spuriously claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which knowingly actually contradicts policy :* Spuriously claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which knowingly actually contradicts policy
:* Playing policies against each other - eg, "this disputed citation ''<nowiki>]]'' cannot be removed even if problematic, since it was agreed by article editors' consensus ''<nowiki>]]''." (in this case the appeal to consensus is incorrect, as ] doesn't actually say what is claimed) :* Playing policies against each other.
:::<small>Example: "this disputed citation ''<nowiki>]]'' cannot be removed even if problematic, since it was agreed by article editors' consensus ''<nowiki>]]''." (in this case the appeal to consensus is incorrect, as ] doesn't actually say what is claimed)</small>
:* Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy. The canonical example here is the ], which limits editors to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The ''purpose'' of 3RR is to quench 'revert wars'. An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, may well still be sanctioned, since the ''spirit'' of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Misplaced Pages against, has been breached. :* Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy.
:::<small>The canonical example here is the ], which limits editors to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The ''purpose'' of 3RR is to quench 'revert wars'. An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, may well still be sanctioned, since the ''spirit'' of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Misplaced Pages against, has been breached.</small>
:* Mischaracterizing another editor's actions in order to create a case of improper editing under some policy. :* Mischaracterizing another editor's actions in order to create a case of improper editing under some policy.
:* 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. :* 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.
::: <small>Example of cherry picking policies: demanding support for an edit because it is verifiable ''<nowiki>]]'' and cited ''<nowiki>]]'', whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources ''<nowiki>]]'' or fairly representing its purported view ''<nowiki>]]''.</small>
:* Attempting to force an interpretation of policy in terms of one's own standards rather than those of the community.
:::<small>Example: ] requires information to be sourced from reliable sources, and covers ways in which some sources are more reliable than others. Ideally content is preferentially sourced from the more reliable sources. Arguing for an unreasonably narrow definition of "reliable", as a means to exclude opposing views, without regard to the view of the community on what "reliable sources" is intended to achieve or what experts in the field consider reliable sources, may be gaming the system.</small><!--

NOTE: I HAVE A PENDING DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE WHERE THIS IS AN ISSUE. THE ABOVE EXAMPLE IS TAKEN FROM THAT CASE.

THIS NOTE IS ADDED TO STATE THAT I WILL NOT BE PLACING RELIANCE UPON MY OWN EDITING OF A PROJECT PAGE, IN ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION ARISING, AS "EVIDENCE" IN THAT CASE.

THIS NOTE CAN BE REMOVED IN AUGUST 2007.
NOTE ALSO COPIED TO TALK PAGE FOR VISIBILITY.

- FT2 -

-->



Gaming sometimes overlaps with other policies: Gaming sometimes overlaps with other policies:

Revision as of 10:39, 18 July 2007

Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.
Misplaced Pages guidelines
Behavioral
Discussions
Content
Editing
Categorization
Style
Deletion
Project content
Other
Search

Gaming the system means using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive.

An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their apparent wording support for a view 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.

Sometimes gaming the system is used to make a point. Other times, it is used for edit warring, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. In all of these, gaming the system is an improper use of policy, and forbidden. An appeal to policy which does not reflect the true intent and spirit of the policy, is an improper use of that policy.

This page in a nutshell: Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.

The meaning of 'gaming the system'

Gaming the system is a process of subversion. Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines exist to sum up the view of the community on how Misplaced Pages operates, and its core principles. To attempt to use those to derail Misplaced Pages processes, or to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance by wilfully misapplying Misplaced Pages policies, is "gaming the system", a form of disruptive editing. Gaming usually involves:

  • Appeal to (or claiming support from) policy for some action or stance, which the user knows does not reflect the true intent and spirit of the policy, or
  • Misrepresenting policy in a way which the user knows will harm Misplaced Pages or its editorial environment in practice.

In each case, wilfulness 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.

Inappropriate disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. Violating the spirit of Misplaced Pages's behavior guidelines may prejudice the decision of administrators or the Arbitration Committee.

Examples

Some examples of gaming the system might include:

  • Bad faith wikilawyering - arguing the word of policy to defeat the spirit of policy
  • Spuriously claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which knowingly actually contradicts policy
  • Playing policies against each other.
Example: "this disputed citation cannot be removed even if problematic, since it was agreed by article editors' consensus ." (in this case the appeal to consensus is incorrect, as WP:CONSENSUS doesn't actually say what is claimed)
  • Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy.
The canonical example here is the three reverts rule, which limits editors to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The purpose of 3RR is to quench 'revert wars'. An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, may well still be sanctioned, since the spirit of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Misplaced Pages against, has been breached.
  • Mischaracterizing another editor's actions in order to create a case of improper editing under some policy.
  • 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 of cherry picking policies: demanding support for an edit because it is verifiable and cited , whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources or fairly representing its purported view .
  • Attempting to force an interpretation of policy in terms of one's own standards rather than those of the community.
Example: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources requires information to be sourced from reliable sources, and covers ways in which some sources are more reliable than others. Ideally content is preferentially sourced from the more reliable sources. Arguing for an unreasonably narrow definition of "reliable", as a means to exclude opposing views, without regard to the view of the community on what "reliable sources" is intended to achieve or what experts in the field consider reliable sources, may be gaming the system.


Gaming sometimes overlaps with other policies:

  • Using policies and guidelines to 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 policy assume good faith.
  • Mis-using Misplaced Pages processes to put another editor in an invidious position, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming. However it is more often categorized as using Misplaced Pages to prove a point or abuse of process.
  • If gaming is also knowingly used as a basis to impune another editor or to mischaracterize them as bad faith editors, then this may also violate the policy of no personal attacks.

Note that actions similar to these where there is no intent to act improperly, are not considered gaming. The essence of gaming is the wilful or knowing misuse of policy.

See also

Category: