Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should WP:Verbage be linked as disruptive behaviour?[edit]

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)
[1]. 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)