Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive. Related terms are wikilawyering and pettifogging, which refer to following an overly strict or contrived interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy.  Gaming also refers to attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies and procedures by using various tricks to make bad faith edits and other disruptive behavior go unnoticed by other editors.  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 war,  or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. In all of these, gaming the system is an improper use of policy and is forbidden.  An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and principle 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 to illuminate and reinforce 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:   Appeal to (or claiming support from) policy for some action or stance, which the user knows does not reflect the true intent and principle of the policy, or  Misrepresenting policy in a way which the user knows will harm Wikipedia or its editorial environment in practice. 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.  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.  Inappropriate disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. Violating the principles of Wikipedia's behavior guidelines may prejudice the decision of administrators or the Arbitration Committee.  Examples  Examples of gaming the system include (but are not limited to):  Bad faith wikilawyering – arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy.  Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy.  For example, spuriously claiming support from WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NPOV to prevent legitimate discussion from progressing. (The gaming of consensus by means of  sock or meat puppetry creates a 'false consensus'.)  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)  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 for citation.  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.  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#Neutrality and Verifiability)  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]. Wikipedia: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.   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.  Also see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  '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.  Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.   Reverting for minor errors – A simple form of gaming, although very common, is the tactic of completely 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. The appropriate response would be to fix minor errors, or at least tag sections for cleanup (or citation-needed ""), rather than wholesale reverting of contributions.  Actions similar to the above, 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.  Various levels of intent 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.  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.