RuneScape:Gaming the system

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

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 further the true intent and spirit of the policy is an improper use of that policy.

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

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.
 * 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 Wikipedia or its editorial environment in practice.

Inappropriate disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. Violating the spirit of Wikipedia's behavior guidelines may prejudice the decision of administrators.

Examples
Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to):
 * 1) Bad faith - arguing the word of policy to defeat the spirit of policy
 * 2) Spuriously claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which knowingly actually contradicts policy
 * For example, spuriously claiming support from RS:CONSENSUS or RS:NPOV to prevent legitimate discussion from progressing. (The gaming of consensus by means of sock or meat puppetry creates a 'false consensus'.)
 * 1) Playing policies against each other.
 * Example: "this disputed citation  [ WP:CITE] cannot be removed even if problematic, since it was agreed by article editors' consensus  [ WP:CONSENSUS]." (in this case the appeal to consensus is also incorrect, as WP:CONSENSUS doesn't actually say what is claimed)
 * 1) Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense 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, or repeatedly reverts twice only in a day, may well still be sanctioned, since the spirit of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Wikipedia against, has been breached. Blocks for more than 3 obvious vandalism reverts (such as those against a vandal repeatedly blanking a page with profanities at least 4 times in 24 hours) and other non-controversial reverts are also considered gaming the system.
 * 1) Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.
 * Example: Not actually providing a specific URL or details for a citation (or giving only vague details), then claiming an editor is being disruptive (breach of WP:DISRUPT) by repeatedly asking again. In this case, it is misrepresentative to describe a reasonable repeated request for information as "disruptive". Failing to provide details sufficient for any editor to locate the exact source with ease, is insufficient to meet community expectation of WP:CITE that citations should be well specified precisely so that other editors may verify them.
 * 1) Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully 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  [ WP:VERIFIABILITY] and cited  [ WP:CITE], whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources  [ WP:RS] or fairly representing its purported view  [ WP:NPOV]. (See: WP:NPOV)
 * 1) 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 related to WP:RS: "Source X is not sufficiently credible for this article on music - the author doesn't have any peer reviewed papers in a music journal!" More generally, this example shows removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]. Reliable sources anticipates that reliable sources with differing levels of reliability and provenance may coexist, and that reliable verifiable sources of reference material will often be available from different types of source, not just one or two preferred by a particular editor. Not every notable view on music is documented in a music journal; not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals. Reliability is determined neutrally, using WP:RS and evidence of the community's view. The primary purpose of WP:RS is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different sources, not to support unilateral demands for an unreasonably narrow personal definition of "reliable" as a means to exclude appropriate sources that document notable opposing views.
 * 1) Stonewalling - actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.
 * See also: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * 1) 'Borderlining' - habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.

Gaming sometimes overlaps with other policies:
 * Mis-using Wikipedia 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 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 policy assume good faith, and in particular, repeated unjustified "warnings" may also be viewed as a breach of 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 no personal attacks.

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

Spurious legalisms
Since Wikipedia is not a court of law, many legal procedures or terms have no bearing on Wikipedia. Typically, 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, while it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of sockpuppets, it is not a defense that all the sockpuppets which emerge were not named in the request for arbitration.

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 disruptive, and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, personal attack, or disruption to make a point. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith and only for good reasons.