User:Charitwo/Sandbox3

State your point; don't prove it experimentally
Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This can be either on the talk page relevant to the particular page in question or on the wiki's forum.

In the past, some contributors have found their stress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled unfairly in their view. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?"

This neglects two important things about FFXIclopedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (Some argue that these are not defects.)

In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive (i.e. they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof").

In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Some readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

Gaming the system
Gaming the system means using FFXIclopedia's policies in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of FFXIclopedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is subversive and in some cases, a form of disruption. It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt FFXIclopedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance.

Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): -
 * 1) Using legal terms and threats inappropriately when discussing policy
 * 2) Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions
 * 3) Playing policies against each other
 * 4) Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy
 * 5) Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper
 * 6) Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community
 * 7) False consensus
 * 8) Stonewalling or willfully stalling discussion or preventing it moving forward
 * 9) 'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach to make it hard to actually prove misconduct)

Gaming can sometimes overlap with policies and guidelines such as disruption (including "disruption to illustrate a point"), incivility (including posting of repeated spurious 'warnings'), personal attack, and failure to assume good faith.

If there is no evidence of improper intent or there is a genuine mistake, it is not usually considered to be gaming. But it may well be, if the action is deliberate, or it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware.

Refusal to 'get the point'
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.

FFXIclopedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing and consensus, both with discussions here on the wiki, and on it's forum. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

Hoaxes
On a related note, please don't attempt to put misinformation into FFXIclopedia to test our ability to detect and remove it; this wastes everyone's time, including yours and may result in you being blocked from editing.

Examples

 * If somebody suggests that FFXIclopedia should become a majority-rule democratic community...
 * do point out that it is entirely possible for FFXIclopedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
 * don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.
 * If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on (AfD)...
 * do make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
 * don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it deleted.
 * If someone lists one of your favorite articles for deletion and calls it silly or otherwise, and you believe that there other similar articles...
 * do state your case on AfD in favor of the article.
 * don't list other articles for deletion in one day to try to save it.
 * If an article you've nominated for deletion is not deleted...
 * do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
 * don't frivolously nominate the same article again just to prove your point.
 * If someone deletes information from an article you deem important...
 * do argue on the article's talk page about the validity of the content.
 * don't respond in kind by find their edits and removing content from an article just to prove a point.
 * If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
 * do set up a discussion page or forum topic and try to establish consensus.
 * don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong.
 * If you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change...
 * do find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise, or consult an administrator.
 * don't revert or edit war an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"
 * If you think that a particular article, category, or template is silly and pointless...
 * do discuss the matter on the template's talk page, or more broadly at the forums.
 * don't create nonsense pages to highlight how silly you think it is
 * If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions to an article...
 * do ask the editor why he removed it or bring up a discussion on the talk page. If this matter fails, consult an administrator.
 * don't remove all content on the page or edit war and re-add your information just to be stubborn.