Interestingly, I just watched the movie "12 Angry Men"... it's interesting to note that, under the prevailing Wikipedia community culture at the moment, the guy who, early on, was the one juror who voted to acquit when the other 11 were saying "guilty", would probably be labeled a "troll". After all, he was going against community consensus, and couldn't even (at first) articulate a good reason behind believing the defendant was innocent -- in fact, he sounded like he didn't really believe the guy was innocent himself, just that fairness required more of a debate than a quick 12-0 vote to convict. Somebody who acted like that in any of the many wikidrama debates that go on here would be labeled as disrupting things to prove a point, and ignored and dismissed (and maybe labeled a sockpuppet of a banned user and summarily removed)... then everybody else could go on with their unanimous verdict to fry the defendant, and the other juror would make it to the ballgame he had tickets to that night.
"Going against consensus" doesn't really make sense. If someone wants to go against it, then there isn't really a consensus. "Vast majority" and "consensus" are not the same thing.