Wikipedia:Policy shopping

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.

Shortcut WP:POLSHOP

This page in a nutshell: Present all justifications for a change at one time (not incrementally).

Policy shopping is the attempt to force a change in Wikipedia content by attempting to incrementally apply different policies to effect the same net result (i.e., if this attempt fails, find another way to try to force the same change). When presenting a proposed change, it is always best to present all the reasons for that change at one time. Policy shopping may be indicative of an ulterior motive and associated with the

.

This is not to say, however, that policy shoppers are always incorrect. It is important to

with all editors (absent evidence to the contrary). It is quite possible that a policy-shopping editor may, after several incorrect attempts to apply policy, find a policy that does mandate a change. However, usually when an editor attempts to find different ways to force a change, they have a vested interest in the issue – if the real reason for change were valid, there would be no need to continue to try and find a different avenue to force the change.

... the problem is not necessarily that somebody is constantly coming up with new reasons why they are 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).

— AuburnPilot

It is a best practice to present all valid arguments for the change of content at once, for several reasons:

1. Brevity – By stating only one policy or guideline at a time, editors are repeatedly asked to reevaluate the same situation. This causes lengthy discussions and multiple postings from (likely) the same editors over and over, which blankets talk pages with unnecessary back-and-forth.
2. Opportunity – By giving editors all the reasons for a change at once, they have the opportunity to address only the concerns that might be valid. There is no need to argue about
   reliable source
   .
3. Good faith – When an editor repeatedly objects to (or insists upon) a certain change by incrementally trying different policies it can give the impression that the editor is trying to force the change using whatever means necessary (whether their points are valid or not). While we require editors to
   assume good faith
   , when an editor exhibits a repeated pattern of "if this way fails I'll try another way" it can increase frustration levels and may give the impression of blanket policy shopping.

By presenting all valid reasons for a change at once, time is saved, discussions are considerably more brief, and there is less chance that other editors may feel good faith is being abused.

However,

about interpretational details.

Usually it starts off as a violation of maintaining a

WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.

— AuburnPilot

Evaluating policy shopping is tricky business, since it is necessarily addressing an editor's motives instead of the content of their argument. Doing so may violate the

assumption of good faith

. Always address the content of the argument instead of the motives of the editor. Labeling arguments as policy shopping has a negative connotation, and should be reserved for only cases in which the offending activity is prolonged and easily identifiable.

Handling policy shopping

Many new editors rely on nuanced policy interpretations (especially the

consensus

reached on the talk page.

See also

• WP:Wikilawyering (specifically, point 2, 3, and 4)
• WP:Neutral point of view
• WP:Identifying reliable sources
• WP:Assume good faith
• WP:Consensus (especially the section on forum shopping and admin shopping)
• WP:Gaming the system (especially "Gaming the consensus-building process")