 | This is an
essay on the
Consensus policy.. 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: 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 |
A procedurally flawed consensus is any process of determining consensus in which some Wikipedia procedure was not followed.
Complaints that a consensus determination is procedurally flawed should always be examined seriously. Such complaints should always result in a re-examination of the consensus, but do not necessarily mean the consensus will be overturned. Whether the consensus determination should be overturned or upheld depends on the nature of the complaint and which procedure was not followed.
Complaints that a serious violation of Wikipedia policy took place usually do result in a consensus being overturned (or at least re-open the discussion), and can result in administrative action against those who did not follow procedure. On the other hand, complaints that amount to petty wikilawyering rarely result in the consensus being overturned. Indeed, if the complaint is considered overly petty, it can backfire upon the complainer: the complaint can deemed more disruptive than the flaw in procedure and result in administrative action against the complainer.
- Wikipedia:Consensus can change (policy)
- Wikipedia:Settle the process first (essay)
- Wikipedia:Sham consensus (essay) – the consensus itself, not necessarily the process, violates a policy, guideline, or ArbCom decision
- Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid (essay)
| This is an
essay on the
Consensus policy.. 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. |
| This page in a nutshell: 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 |
A procedurally flawed consensus is any process of determining consensus in which some Wikipedia procedure was not followed.
Complaints that a consensus determination is procedurally flawed should always be examined seriously. Such complaints should always result in a re-examination of the consensus, but do not necessarily mean the consensus will be overturned. Whether the consensus determination should be overturned or upheld depends on the nature of the complaint and which procedure was not followed.
Complaints that a serious violation of Wikipedia policy took place usually do result in a consensus being overturned (or at least re-open the discussion), and can result in administrative action against those who did not follow procedure. On the other hand, complaints that amount to petty wikilawyering rarely result in the consensus being overturned. Indeed, if the complaint is considered overly petty, it can backfire upon the complainer: the complaint can deemed more disruptive than the flaw in procedure and result in administrative action against the complainer.
- Wikipedia:Consensus can change (policy)
- Wikipedia:Settle the process first (essay)
- Wikipedia:Sham consensus (essay) – the consensus itself, not necessarily the process, violates a policy, guideline, or ArbCom decision
- Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid (essay)