Wikipedia talk:False consensus

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Chain-canvassing

For the mechanism see: Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, last section. 144.85.129.78 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sham consensus

I wrote a new essay, WP:Sham consensus. Shortcuts to it are WP:SHAMCONSENSUS, WP:SHAMCON, and WP:SHAM. It incorporates false consensus and wrongful consensus under a single label, while preserving the latter two essays. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Ref

"all above are in decisions or proposed decisions by ArbCom and unanimously supported "

Please provide references. It is often useful to look into context. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use "search" but many are ones used in mulltiple cases (in some cases with trivial variations), and all were unanimous views. And all are in their entirety here, which means I am unsure as to what sort of "context" could alter their meanings. Collect (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated actions

"When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered."

While I understand the necessity of discouraging active coordination, I see this happen informally all of the time...a group of Editors working in the same topic areas, Editors who have the same Articles and TPs on their watchlist, Editors who've supported one another in debates in the past and keep tabs on each other, in other words, wikifriendship. I have seen Editors pop up to cast a vote in a discussion where they previously had no apparent participation--no comments but still could have been following the discussion--but I think this is rarely the result of organized canvassing or coordinated.

I understand that this guidelines is about "weight" and not forbidding this conduct but it's important to recognize that supporting ones friends or allies is a natural social activity. Unfortunately, it can sway perception of consensus but it is to be expected, it's predictable human behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This essay and Wikipedia copyright

Thus essay contains several sections which are obviously not original here, but without attribution. I believe that this would make these sections be a copyright violation, unless their sources can be traced. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which sections? Note that if they come from elsewhere in Wikipedia, there is likely no copyright violation. And attribution is a good idea even if no copyright is being violated. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]