Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Consensus and discussion
|Nutshells in a nutshell: This is an essays in a nutshell page. Essays in a nutshell is a navigation aid that summarizes the gist of Wikipedia's essays. Essays can also be navigated via categories, navigation templates, or Special:Search. For a listing and more information on searching for essays, see Wikipedia:About essay searching.|
|Essay||In a nutshell||Shortcuts||Impact|
False consensus applies to any supposed "consensus" arrived at through canvassing, vote-stacking, or other manipulation of a process or discussion contrary to policy or to ArbCom decisions. Admins should disregard any such claimed consensus, and open a re-discussion, barring those who engaged in improper activity. Actions taken on the basis of a false consensus may be discounted by ArbCom or by other administrators.
|Procedurally flawed consensus||
A procedurally flawed consensus results from editors not following a wikipedia procedure. Procedurally flawed consensus results in a re-examination of the consensus, but not necessarily its overturning
|Reducing consensus to an algorithm||
While consensus formation on Wikipedia cannot literally be reduced to a mathematical function, the likelihood of success of a proposition in a content dispute is actually fairly simple to predict with a model.
A sham consensus may not be relied on, because it violates a policy, a guideline, or an ArbCom decision.
A wrongful consensus results from violation of policy or guideline and is not reliable as a consensus.