Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Consensus and discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also Wikipedia:Essay directory#Discussions and consensus
Essay In a nutshell Shortcuts Impact
False consensus

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.

WP:FALSECON

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

WP:PROCEDURALLYFLAWEDCONSENSUS
WP:PFC

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.

WP:CONALGO

Sham consensus

A sham consensus may not be relied on, because it violates a policy, a guideline, or an ArbCom decision.

WP:SHAMCONSENSUS
WP:SHAMCON
WP:SHAM

Wrongful consensus

A wrongful consensus results from violation of policy or guideline and is not reliable as a consensus.

WP:WRONGFULCONSENSUS
WP:WRONGCONSENSUS
WP:WRONGFULCON
WP:WRONGCON