24:
84:
245:
he or she will ask for clarification. If not, it's better to assume that every editor has read every word of text. Not only does it create a more cordial atmosphere which is unfettered by the tension creating by badgering other editors, it also makes the text considerably shorter and easier to read
219:
A participating editor in an RfA will often see reasons to oppose a candidate that he or she feels are frivolous, irrelevant, and simply don't mesh with that editor's own feelings. However, voicing that opinion more than once is generally regarding as badgering, and may actually harm the candidate's
233:
You can't get consensus all by yourself, and if you repeat yourself you're only going to annoy other editors. Take a look at any of the more contentious deletion debates and you're likely to find one or two editors who make it a point to respond to each !vote they disagree with. The same can be
196:
is in reply to opposing viewpoints. Frequently this increases the emotional involvement of all editors and leads to comments that aren't exactly about the merits of the article in question. Incivility is often close behind, and the closing admin has a lot more irrelevant text to wade through in
178:
Knowledge is full of opportunities to debate things, but don't distract from your well-formed arguments by assuming other editors will agree with them if they only have a chance to read them again. Many editors with strong opinions only weigh in once on a particular debate, knowing that their
115:
for the site. Editors who feel strongly for a particular position sometimes fall into a repetitive pattern, saying the same thing again and again in different ways, under the false assumption that the only reason consensus isn't building in the desired direction is because other editors don't
209:
When a candidate replies to most of the opposes it leads to the impression that he or she is desperate to become an administrator. Some editors specifically consider this a reason to oppose the candidate, while others may be more subtly moved by those comments.
174:
may seek to dissuade opposers by responding to each of their points. Such behavior is considered badgering by some, and annoying by many. It makes the editor appear desperate, which leads to the question, "Why is he or she so intent to getting his or her way?"
149:
If no other editor chooses to either revert or make additional edits in favor of your position, then there just isn't consensus for your changes. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and seek an opinion on the article's talk page. However,
102:
Knowledge is based upon the written word, and the MediaWiki software in particular is good at keeping a record of those written words. This is particularly important to keep in mind when building consensus, be it for making a
220:
chances. Similarly, if an editor feels that his or her reasons for opposing a candidate are being discounted, it's easy to ask each and every supporting editor if they'd considered that viewpoint. It's better to
133:
How do you build consensus if you can only make your point once? You have to wait for someone else to chime in. This means that if you make a change to an article, and another editor reverts it, that you
162:
One of the reasons why responding to every criticism in a debate is problematic is because it tends to shift the focus onto the editor, rather than his or her arguments. A strident
235:
246:
at the same time. By embracing the once is enough philosophy, you've actually made it easier for other editors to consider your views!
43:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
44:
193:
92:
Consensus is built by the strength of arguments, not by their frequency. Only make your point once in a discussion, and
265:
163:
167:
48:
36:
58:
120:
The truth of the matter? The other editors understand you just fine, they just don't happen to
154:
here, too: state your case, and if you get no response, well, you haven't achieved consensus.
32:
212:
This is compounded if the candidate is addressing the same issue with more than one editor.
179:
arguments are measured on their strength, not on the number of words used to advance them.
104:
259:
242:
241:
It's not necessary to say it more than once. If an editor isn't sure what you mean,
221:
171:
143:
112:
108:
93:
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
234:
seen in the RfA process, particularly when an editor known for having strong
170:
may attempt to refute every opposing position at an Afd. Similarly, an
96:
to reread what you've written or ask for clarification if they need it.
250:
78:
18:
66:
146:, you aren't going to come anywhere near that.
118:
8:
158:Let them focus on your reasons, not on you
142:revert rule, but if you're only going to
116:understand that point that's being made.
7:
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
45:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
82:
22:
228:
192:Usually argument repetition in
229:There is no 'I' in 'consensus'
197:order to judge the consensus.
1:
183:How repetition can be harmful
105:controversial article change
238:views goes through the it.
236:inclusionist or deletionist
282:
113:selecting an administrator
56:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
172:editor seeking adminship
138:. Yes, Knowledge has a
136:don't do a second revert
90:This page in a nutshell:
126:
222:assume that they have
194:Articles for deletion
47:, as it has not been
207:Candidate comments.
109:deleting an article
94:trust other editors
100:
99:
77:
76:
273:
266:Knowledge essays
86:
85:
79:
69:
26:
25:
19:
281:
280:
276:
275:
274:
272:
271:
270:
256:
255:
231:
217:Other comments.
203:
190:
185:
160:
131:
83:
73:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
279:
277:
269:
268:
258:
257:
230:
227:
226:
225:
214:
202:
199:
189:
186:
184:
181:
159:
156:
152:once is enough
130:
129:Wait your turn
127:
98:
97:
87:
75:
74:
71:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
278:
267:
264:
263:
261:
254:
252:
247:
244:
239:
237:
223:
218:
215:
213:
208:
205:
204:
200:
198:
195:
187:
182:
180:
176:
173:
169:
165:
157:
155:
153:
147:
145:
141:
137:
128:
125:
123:
117:
114:
110:
106:
95:
91:
88:
81:
80:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
248:
240:
232:
216:
211:
206:
191:
177:
164:inclusionist
161:
151:
148:
139:
135:
132:
121:
119:
101:
89:
30:
168:deletionist
144:say it once
31:This is an
249:Consensus
124:with you.
37:Consensus
260:Category
59:Shortcut
67:WP:ONCE
39:policy.
35:on the
243:assume
140:three
122:agree
111:, or
33:essay
251:FTW
201:RfA
188:AfD
166:or
262::
253:!
107:,
224:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.