There are many ways to run a decision-making process and consensus has his faults.
It may be a very time consuming process but the goal is near Utopian, in the end all parties will be satisfied or at least appeased.
Take for example a very common phrase, "consensual sex" can it survive the substitution for a decision by rough consensus?
I think not, since the result to bypassing the objection would be disastrous to the objector.
If his position is not justifiable or can not be acted upon in the progress of the decision process, it becomes clear that he intents a permanent block, only by power of argumentation and by how the process is run, how fair it is, can the block be bypassed ("the good of the many outweighing the good of a few").
In no way a decision blocking user should have his opinion dismissed without the others voters stating at least justifiable reasons to do so based on the facts that would press the closing of the decision-making process, solutions should always be found before excluding a user from the process, for instance votes on sub-sections of the proposal, elaborating for instance a guiding rule that after a given timeframe of block the majority would have his way, a specific ratio of votes in favor/against, exclusion of the objecting and in favor users from a number future discussions, etc...Community consensus or "the expression of the community will" is open to any Wikibook's user (Wikibookian) and even unregistered users, except blocked users (due to the nature of the effect of the block action, not by stated policy/guideline).There are also subjects that the Wikibooks: Decision making states as being outside of a consensus decision making process, they are expressly defined as part (but not all) of the Low impact decisions section of the policy.In any case what is important to understand is that the decision process should not consist only in applying a voting (or a substitute) mechanism.In reality, voting even if needed to establish positions, is one of the least significant parts of the process of consensus, the task of finding a common ground is, that can only be obtained by making everyone work together in good faith to achieve a desirable outcome for the group (see Wikibooks: Assume good faith).By eroding the use of the word the final objective is only to keep the appearance of consensus but in reality another process is used.Since sole justification by numbers is not relevant (not even on the Wikibooks context, as it should be the process that guides even user to user discussions), ultimately this kind of solution should be avoided.Disruptive behavior can be observed in regards to the use of consensus, but if participants are really willing to compromise and work for a greater objective than to just abuse of the block power they have, rewards can be greater than the problems, you will get a less accommodating participation and raise interest to the core issues, diversity can be a strength, if the time is granted for everyone to express their views, more information is shared, and better solutions can be found.A user that is only blocking a decision without being open to compromise can only exist because he is not really willing to participate in the greater good of the overall project, with time he will tire and lose his arguments.It does in fact demonstrate that others are willing to address your position, the alternative would be to ignore it or a permanent block on the discussion.Recently we are witnessing the increasingly utilization of words not due to the positive value of the idea or concept a word represents but only because of the varnish or implication it can provide to the context it is used in, this is a result of increasing levels o marketing, publicity and public relations campaigns we now face everyday, appearance is everything.