Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping

Initial discussion
This essay is nothing more than my off-the-cuff thoughts (shaped by recent and long-term events on wikipedia). It's not absolute, and I haven't taken much time to codify what I mean. I'm more interested in having community input, both on the content of the essay and the validity of its existance. It's my hope that many editors will jump in and help in its composition and its intent. We're a community project, and I think this is an important topic that hasn't been adequately addressed. I encourage others to help me out on this. :-) /Blaxthos 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A great idea, even if it remains a non-policy opinion essay. Arzel certainly isn't the first time I've watched someone go policy shopping.  I'd suggest reserving the page Policy shopping, and shortcut WP:SHOPPING.  I see WP:SHOP is already taken. Italiavivi 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the premise of this essay may be flawed. And why are you focusing only on removal, and not inclusion of information, or other editorial actions? Many editors like to keep their arguments short. I often will think of a number of applicable policies justifying a particular action, but rather than go on and on stating them all up front, I will choose the one that seems the clearest and easiest to state. If that fails, I may start piling them on, depending on how strongly I feel about the action. The policies are also dynamic. Unless you read them all every day, you're bound to miss some new nuance, and often in the middle of a debate, I will reread a policy and find a new argument. I recently had a disagreement with another editor who was using a poorly worded line of WP:V to justify something I didn't agree with. So I went to WP:V, got consensus, and clarified that point in the policy. That is how we build a better encyclopedia. You start out saying that we must AGF, but by the end of your intro, you are implying that anyone using multiple arguments should be viewed as suspect. That doesn't sound like good faith. Gamaliel (which is how I found this essay) and I have many disagreements on interpretations of policy, and my debates with him can be like a roller coaster ride. We see things from different points of view, but we're both good capable editors, and we both make good arguments. Often it comes down to a stalemate, or a compromise, but we usually work it out eventually. That takes some tap dancing. It shouldn't be viewed as something nefarious. - Crockspot 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Crockspot, I appreciate your input and take particular note of your observation that the current wording limits it to deletion of material. I've often found this is the most common situation in which policy shopping occurs, however indeed it's not the only situation in which it may occur.  Regarding the rest, I think that it's better form to go ahead and present all your reasons for opposing something up front.  By doing so, you eliminate needless and lengthy back-and-forth and you avoid giving the impression of policy shopping -- exactly what this essay is about!  If nothing else, your input has helped guide the "what to do" section(s).  Excellent!  :-)
 * Well, since "policy shopping" isn't a "violation" to be avoided, I see nothing wrong with it, and object to the implication in your edit summary. Looking at another comment above, it appears that this essay may have come about because of a problem you are having with a particular editor. I would suggest a dispute resolution path rather than a general essay that projects your feelings about a partiular editor onto the entire community. What I see as the logical outcome here is that editors will dismiss valid arguments made by editors they dispute with by merely calling it "policy shopping" without addressing the valid concerns. Also consider that through dispute resolution, the end being an arbitration proceeding, you can get the ARB committee to make something policy, if they find your argument has merit. I just don't see the community in general supporting a policy stemming from this essay. What you are asking is that the other policies be ignored in cases where someone is presenting them "too well". If an editor is engaging in the behavior because of a conflict of interest, or because of a tenditious pattern, there are already remedies for those issues. - Crockspot 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted a link to this essay on WP:AN to gain some wider and more authoritative input. Obviously I have a problem with the premise here, but it's also obvious I am viewed by the author as someone who needs to be reigned in by such a policy, so my comments may not be seen as very valid here. - Crockspot 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Crockspot, you miss the point. One, just because something isn't a policy does not mean it shouldn't be avoided (double negative, I know).  There are plenty of helpful do's and don'ts on wikipedia that are in essay form that aren't policies.  See WP:FANCRUFT, WP:RECENT, etc..  Would you ignore Avoiding common mistakes because it is neither a policy or guideline?  I hope not!  Generally speaking, they are opinion essays in which a substantial part of the community believes to be true.  By your logic, if something isn't policy, then you have no obligation to adhere to it.  While this may be technically correct, you may find your wikijourney easier if you take into consideration the helpful suggestions that occur outside the boundaries of policy.  By the way, there are only three steadfast policies, the rest are guidelines.  Two, this essay does not have the intent of ever becoming a policy (or guideline).  It's simply an attempt to help editors understand the (unintentional I'm sure) outcome of taking your approach of trying one policy, if that doesn't stick, try another, rinse & repeat.  Imagine a lawyer who objects to something that occurs in the courtroom, and is overruled.  The lawyer then objects again, trying another reason, and is overruled again.  How many times will the judge tolerate the behavior?  I can assure you, not long at all before he will assume that the objections are spurious.  However, if that same lawyer stated all his objections in the first objection it's far more likely that he will win his objection, it will save the court's time and he won't be in danger of being seen as either petty or desperate.  Third, I believe that your understanding about the evolution of our guidelines and policies is completely flawed -- as I understand it, ArbCom has nothing to do with what becomes a guideline.  Finally, this essay has come forth because of multiple incidents I've witnessed over many, many years, and isn't doesn't "project [my] feelings about a particular editor.  Instead of being so defensive about the subject, I hope you will try to understand the merits of what is contained herein.  By the way, in the court system, you have exactly one opportunity to voice your objection or appeal, exactly for the same reasons that this essay addresses -- it's a waste of time to go back and forth, arguments are more persuasive when presented all at once, and it gives the opposition the opportunity to address all of the arguments at once.  Now, you certainly have a point about editors labelling something as "policyshopping" and attempting to avoid the merits of the argument.  This is no different than the fancruft essay, and we must be careful to make sure that the essay specifically addresses that possibility.  However, we shouldn't avoid writing it just because a few may misuse it.  As Beccaria once said, doing so would mean we should deny fire to man because a few may be burned, or water because some may drown.  I really do hope this helps you understand the intent and the validity contained in these writings.  As always, your input is appreciated.  /Blaxthos 12:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are ignoring the fact that arguments develop over time, and in response to counter arguments. As I stated above, often a new realization about a policy will come in the middle of a debate. - Crockspot 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I wasn't expecting anyone to nominate this essay for deletion. I was hoping to get some good input here to guide you in a better direction, but since it is now nominated, I am supporting deletion. Sorry. Really. - Crockspot 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, this essay is against users, on a vendetta against some snippet of text, citing policies incrementally to strengthen their position. If that is the case, I think it would have a lot of overlap with WP:POINT. Plus why removal of content only, and not includion? --soum talk 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Soumyasch, you're right about limiting this to removal of content only. As I noted above, Crockspot also pointed out that we shouldn't limit this to removal of content only, and I agree.  I haven't had a chance to update the essay to reflect the more comprehensive view (largely due to dealing with the preemptive MFD).  Also, it should be noted that the intent of this essay is not to cover every instance of incremental policy application.  Arguments do indeed develop over time, and often times someone simply doesn't think about a second applicable policy until after the first proposale is made.  There is room for, and we should actively include in the essay, the fact that it's quite possible that arguments simply develop after the fact.  However, the intent of the essay is to show why it's important to go ahead and present all valid points at one time -- to avoid the appearance of "sniping" at a particular passage or content, to give the responding editors the chance to address all points at once, and to stop needless back-and-forth that seems to blanket talk pages.  It's really frustrating sometimes to have to explain something five or six times.  Crockspot has shown exactly why this is important.  /Blaxthos 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the point you're trying to get across, I would suggest that you rename this to "make all your points upfront" or something snappier to the same effect. Choosing a positive title to encourage people to do something is going to piss people off a lot less than a negative title "labelling" a type of behaviour. In this form I can only see this essay being used by people to snipe at each other in debates, but rewritten to make that point clear it could be very useful. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PS is a great idea, and an effective way to deal with a particular "keep changing the subject/justification" cadre that has tried to "game the system" in several articles I've seen (mostly political). One has to wonder about the motivations of those editors demanding that policy shopping does not, in fact, exist.  It smacks of "nothing to see here" denial.  Kudos to those editors finally calling this ruse what it is. Eleemosynary 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention
Thebainer makes an excellent point above. Anyone have suggestions for a "snappier" title? I certainly don't want people coming to the essay with a preconceived notion, which the current title seems to instigate. suggestions welcome! /Blaxthos 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about some of these:
 * Policy farming
 * Policy loopholing
 * Policy lawyering
 * Policy bastardizing
 * Policy badgering
 * Policy police
 * --WaltCip 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if any of those are any better, and certainly a few ("bastardizing") are probably more incindiary than anything else. ;-)  /Blaxthos 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Practice before paper" then?--WaltCip 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something along the lines of, though not necessarily, policy hopping (I'm actually not a fan of that name, just the idea). If I'm reading things correctly, the problem is not necessarily that somebody is constantly coming up with new reasons why they should be right, but that they keep jumping from policy to policy hoping they'll land on something that in some way supports what they are trying to do. It's like they're just pushing button after button hoping they'll finally find the one that opens the door (or in this case, presenting policy after policy until one of them finally mentions something of relevance). -  auburn pilot  talk  01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely (good analogy!). Do you think the points contained herein are valid? /Blaxthos 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I know I've come across this mentality on several articles. Usually it starts off as a violation of maintaining a neutral point of view. You source the statements proving it isn't a violation, and suddenly it's a violation of WP:Reliable sources. You double check your sources, find additional sources, and ensure they are all within WP:RS, and suddenly it's a violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:NOT, or something as ridiculous as a WikiProject's style guides. If all else fails, the user making the object resorts to simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. This is usually when somebody is blocked for three revert rule and is never seen again...or at least for several months. -  auburn pilot  talk  03:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Second look
I was asked to take another look. It was my opinion that the premise was flawed, and it still is. So the finished work doesn't make me feel any fuzzier. The Socratic method is the foundation of western discourse, and this essay presumes that there's something bad about it. I've never witnessed an editor who desperately grasped for every policy they can think of. (If you have any examples you want to email me, I'll look at them). I would imagine an editor that frazzled would have other issues as an editor, and could be dealt with through the myriad of processes available. I just don't believe these "extreme" policy shoppers even exist, so I have to assume that the only other point of this essay is to take a broad swipe at a class of editors who have a particular debate style, of which I probably am included. You're welcome to hold your opinion, I just happen to disagree strongly. And woe be to the editor who ever cites this essay to me in a content dispute, for they shall be taken on a long and jaunty ride from WP:A to WP:Y. :) - Crockspot 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you that this behaviour exists all too frequently. You can almost always find some example of it on Talk:Fox News Channel, and there are some great examples of it in the archives of that page (particularly Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 16 through present).  /Blaxthos 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I observed one of this type of editor on George Soros last week. But it seems to be moving forward through use of normal reasoned debate. So I guess they do exist. - Crockspot 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I just took a look at the discussion and agree. I also noticed someone used the phrase "policy shopping" -- I wonder if he read this essay?  :-)  /Blaxthos 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples?
I've been wondering if we should add some examples of policy shopping to the essay. If we were to change the names of the editors would that be sufficient to overcome the possible "attack page" arguments. I have one good example where the editor blatantly goes from policy to policy before admitting that he just didn't like the edit in question, and I have another example from a poll where an editor, although not quoting any specific policy, claimed that "Wikipedia policy" forbade an edit which clearly was proper. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. I can think of several specific experiences that would make for excellent examples of policy shopping.  I will make a Policy shopping/Sandbox page where we can work on this.  /Blaxthos 23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHOPPING?
WP:SHOPPING doesn't redirect to this page anymore, so shouldn't it be removed from the shortcut list? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It redirects here again. Unfortunately, altered the redirect without discussion. -  auburn pilot   talk  00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'kay. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers by asking... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, no feathers ruffled. I'm glad you pointed it out. - auburn pilot   talk  02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

problems
as this was recently added as a see also from a well-accepted guideline page WP:CANVASS, I came to register my doubts, which are similar to those of Crockspot, above. There are several different styles of discussing. as an analogy, let's say I see a page that, besides being a copyvio, is also lacking in RS, and about a subject with doubtful Notability. What I do with it is add a copyvio tag, and the next admin deletes it after verifying I haven't goofed. Now suppose the author licenses it properly & puts it back--now I will start my concerns with N and V, rather than initiate a possibly long argument when 90% of the time its unnecessary. Some people, on the other hand, add all the tags they can think of at once. But lets take more of what the author of this essay had in mind. In an Afd debate, someone presents all the possible reasons an article might be deleted, violating every policy possible. We now need to discuss all of them. If we leave one out, he'll pick on it as a reason for deletion. If he had given the strongest one or two, we could discuss the actual issue. (Same thing happens in defending.) Even more to the point, in discussing an addition to an article, it does not help to raise all the possible objections at once. I know this is done in legal argument, but they have their own reasons--the process from there seems usually to consist of successive discarding the weakest of them, and lawyers are often paid by time, and have a reason to make the list of rationales as long as possible. We, on the other hand, have an interest in settling maters without getting overinvolved in not quite relevant details. DGG (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I too think arguments can evolve, and I appreciate editors who can focus on major components of a complex issue in a logical fashion. Its far more time effective in a consensus process, such as first resolving notability of the subject before working thru problems with sources.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Simultaneous policy shopping is as likely to be agenda driven as one-at-a-time policy shopping
Although some editors who engage in trickling one-at-a-time arguments might indeed be motivated by some sort of agenda, three things: (A) it is not necessarily so, (B) editors who list all their arguments at once are not necessarily agenda-free as the essay implies, and (C) however things are listed they still tend to get analyzed one by one. Personally, when I see a battery of policy citations happening all at once I tend to wonder "what is the REAL issue"? Whether its a cerebral question of their biggest policy concern, or they have a POV or other non-kosher agenda is purely one of their own intent. Yet the need to seek consensus means getting to the real issue and that might lead to dicey ground of assuming good faith, focusing on content, etc. But when there's an agenda hiding behind either one-at-a-time or simultaneous policy shopping, WP:HONESTY is AWOL and meaningful consensus is only truly achieved when honesty is present. At such times it should be OK - and even encouraged as a mediation/consensus sort of thing - to say "I just like it because" and to ask "Why do you just like it?". That context will greatly aide the reasoned analysis of policy, however the arguments are presented. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers
One reason for policy shopping is that the shopper can see that something is not being done the way they're used to seeing in other articles they've edited, read, or discussed, but they don't know the policies well enough to get it right on the first couple tries. Let's face it, this place has a tall learning curve, because editing an encyclopedia is often not trivial. Even a fairly experienced editor can be a newbie wrt many aspects of policy. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)