Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :PLAYPOLICY. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#PLAYPOLICY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PLAYPOLICY" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This page covers behavior that is otherwise hard to describe in a concrete way for many wikipedians (I think), but adding extra redirects might help me and many other wikipedians with addressing and dealing with the behaviour described on this page.
 
I have thus far added these 2 redirects: 
 
However, if I were to introduce redirects at all the pages where I think it might be handy, The new amount of redirects will quickly add up to dozens of redirects and anchors. All those pages might be excessive and maybe even redundant. 
I hereby ask you, dear reader and fellow wikipedian, to reply to my honest question, not with a decisive, yet lacking answer of "yes", or "no", but with an elegant and eloquent explanation, that is refined and sophisticated, yet not too verbose, and exhaustive, not exhausting, of how many redirects should be added and where. (Hopefully, my message doesn't break Wikipedia:Civility with such a faux posh message)
 
P.S.: Adding or removing redirects is not something I'm in a position to stop due to my new redirects. Therefore, you shouldn't expect to see me stop you from fulfilling your duty as an editor. Be bold and please reply.
P.S.S.: You are under no obligation to reply, Dear reader.
 
P.S.S.S.: Still, Please reply, s'il vous plait. 
 
Thanks for reading my question. Braggy (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many redirects should be added 

message: I’d like to suggest adding WP:PGBOLD to the see also links.  It says, “Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.”  This issue recently came up here but I couldn’t find the pertinent policy until now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting folks at the Pump to identify that shortcut, but I have a better suggestion.   Let's just transclude  that sentence into the "Gaming the consensus process" section.  By using transclusion the text will still be maintained at the source but any  future community approved changes  will echo here automatically.  As your own experience  shows,it should be  much easier to find that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Transcluding might work, though I usually prefer the simpler lower-tech methods.  Like writing footnotes by hand instead of using citation templates.  But however people refer to the matter here would be a definite improvement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing else developes between my departure (now) and my return (today tomorrow sometime) I'll take care of it.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I could figure out how to do the transclusion, it’s just that there’s an advantage to keeping things simple, because more people will easily understand what’s happening, will understand how to improve or modify it, less can go wrong, etc.  But if you prefer transclusion then that’s a whole lot better than doing nothing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I changed it a little bit, to this:   Otherwise, it would not have helped me to find the info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to “see also” 

message: The beginning defines gaming as being only when the intentions of the person are very bad.  E.G. working against the goals of wikipedia.  Then the rest of the essay goes on to describe the many mechanisms used in gaming.  
IMO 90% of gaming has wrong but less serious intentions. For example to tilt the POV of an article in one's preferred direction or as volleys in a dispute that two editors have gotten into.  We really need to be able to point those out as wp:gaming.   However since the beginning of the essay defines gaming as being only when the intentions are really really bad, that precludes using this term/ essay from being used to point out the other 90% of instances of gaming which have less severe intentions. Including via it making a reference to gaming as being a very serious accusation, thus preventing use of the term for the common milder forms of gaming.  IMO the beginning should acknowledge the common forms with less severe intentions.  North8000 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable in principle, but I think this isn't likely to gain any traction without specific rewrite suggestions for people to consider.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A ping is probably warranted, since that dates back to April.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look.   There was a similar issue at wp:wikilawyering and over time I softened it up to make it more usable. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I put an additional example in as as starting point and noted that some instances of it are common and mild.  Maybe a starting point.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You put in  But it's unclear what this is supposed to even mean. A "Using policies such as WP: to tilt an article towards " construction just sounds contradictory. What does it mean to "use NPOV to tilt towads a POV"? How would that even be possible?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

text: The original formulation above was "to tilt the POV of an article in one's preferred direction or as volleys in a dispute that two editors have gotten into." How can this be distilled into an example of system-gaming? One just seems like PoV-pushing, and the other battlegrounding. This page is really about abusing aspects of the system/community/process, "gaming" them, in ways that benefit a particular party at the expense of other editors, the community, the project, or the readership.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I think something like that would more directly address your complaint above than just adding a new example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. My goal / suggestions is to communicate "sometimes it is mild" in order to make this guideline / the term more usable for the common milder situations.  North8000 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hopefully the edit sticks. I think the new lead better summarizes the actual page content in the first place, so it should.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This should acknowledge the far more common and less serious instances of gaming