This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Gaming the discussion is a method of arguing that some editors use in order to prolong/derail a discussion or evade key points manipulate consensus to achieve their personal preferences in an article.
Continuous lying and refusal to answer
When an editor claims something or claims a statement previously mentioned during the discussion, when it has not.been addressed or proven to be true. The "lie" must be confronted multiple times before assuming the editor is lying intentionally. Example: When a disruptive editor claims to provided a compromise and the editor of the opposing discussion does not see a single compromise the disruptive editor has brought up. and asks to elaborate on it. Instead of formally answering the opposing editor, the editor continues to use the same points without attempting to answer or caiming they already did.
Mentioning multiple irrelevant topics that don't help his/her cause only to make his/her argument look bigger (and better). Citing different articles, different circumstances alltogether. Similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but not really adding anything to compare to the topic at hand that would support his/her claims.
- "look at how well organized these other articles are. Look how low on categories this article has. As I said before, I'm opposed to merging this article."
When editors attempt to discredit another editor's opinion based on minor events that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is also disruptive if editors not involved attempt to "warn" other editors without adding their view on the topic.
- "You lost in the previous discussion, so we shouldn't listen to you this time."
- "You used a policy incorrectly in the past, so why cite another policy?"
- "You're known to being difficult, so we should all ignore you."
Controlling the discussion
When editors believe they need to be serviced by another editor and refuses to discuss the issues as equals. Often assuming victory and refusing to elaborate with the opposing editor for their benefit. Often the editor would ignore points made by the opposing editor until all questions of the editor are met. This leads to the opposing editor to be left empty handed. Other forms of neglect are bluntly being vague and not elaborating. Also attempting to own articles, editors would refuse to discuss and send the editor to another article.
- "I didn't ask you why it shouldn't be merged, I asked how we should handle the merge."
- "Sorry...I simply disagree."
- "Don't worry about this article, I'll handle it. you should take care of the others."
(Note: Even if consensus is reached, editors must always elaborate to the opposing so that s/he may understand why consensus did not agree with his/her argument. It shows editors are considering of others and wish to help editors in the future. It also helps avoid the same problem in future discussions and maybe the opposing editor would become a supporting editor.)
When editors attempt to make things personal or asks a provoking question to avoid answering or conter-argue to the opposing editor. Per the relevant WP:NPA policy, it also includes "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
Misguide third party viewers
Attempts to use irrelevant or false points so that third opinion unfamiliar with the subject would be more likely to agree with him/her. Often makes one subject more complicated than what it actually is so that editors can agree with him/her after being proven wrong/innacurate/not completely true by opposing editors.
When editors bring multiple irrelevant guidelines and policies without elaborating to misguide potential third opinions. Often, this is bundled with challenging opposing editors to find a policy to support their claim. Policies are general, and not all of them will support/oppose a specific claim.
(Note:It is not disruptive if an editor quotes the policy/guideline, and elaborates on it regardless if it being misinterpretted. If however, editor has been informed that his/her usage of the policy/guideline is misinterpretted, and continues to use the same policy in the exact same method without clarifying why s/he didn't misinterpret the policy/guideline, it can be considered intentional.)
A Double Jeopardy rule This is a rule i believe has to be applied here in Wikipedia. if a member has been received administrative action before, more administrative action on the same dispute cannot be pursued unless new disruption is confirmed after. This as a rule, would mean that even if an a community dislikes a certain member and have the consensus to do something like it, the problem would still be that action has been done and therefore, the community can be deemed the disruptive ones for pushing forward with it when action has already been done.
^^^Now you may be thinking "This rule seems unnecessary" or "who would think to do that?", the answer is, if the community feels strongly about something to the point of bias, it can really cause and issue (and it has in the past). And as much as some may believe WP:AN or WP:ANI is the larger community, its sometimes isolated a just a group of editors. Especially if these group of editors are mostly involved with a specific group. This issue also arises when the group revolves around a specific group of friends, in a form of favoritism
A strict Preventative policy WP:PUNISH is an essay, but the only reason why its an essay more than a guideline or policy is simply for word choice. The vast majority of it can be reworded to help avoid admins from taking punitive action so quickly. If it is accepted, Admins will not find ways to punish members simply because they feel they deserve it, but they will think for the community first (even if the community wants to be punitive) and prevent certain things. This could also mean that the administrators will have to think of a new action not proposed if it means choosing a more preventative action, regardless if the community wants to be more punitive. Ive seen some situations where admins take "regrettable" actions due to the community's decision.