Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Second look 

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

message: WP:SHOPPING doesn't redirect to this page anymore, so shouldn't it be removed from the shortcut list? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It redirects here again. Unfortunately,  altered the redirect without discussion. - auburnpilot talk 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'kay. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers by asking... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, no feathers ruffled. I'm glad you pointed it out. - auburnpilot talk 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SHOPPING? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: problems

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simultaneous policy shopping is as likely to be agenda driven as one-at-a-time policy shopping 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't bite the newcomers