I did some research on the issue of wiping over the khuffayn (leather socks). The four madhhabs say that the khuff must cover the ankle. But I came across a book by Shaykh al-Albaani in which he said that it is possible to wipe over the shoe/khuff that does not cover the ankle; this view is contrary to scholarly consensus. I hope you can explain the matter to me.

Praise
be to Allah.

Firstly: 

The
four madhhabs are agreed that one of the conditions for wiping over the
khuffayn is that they should cover the area that must be washed (in wudoo’)
– the ankles as well as the feet. If they do not cover the ankles, then
wiping over them is not valid, by analogy with wudoo’. And because what
appears must be washed and what is covered must be wiped over, it is not
possible to combine the original rule and the alternative in one limb. 

See:
Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel by al-Kharashi (179); Haashiyat Qalyoobi
wa ‘Umayrah (1/68); al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (37/264). 

Secondly: 

There
is no scholarly consensus concerning this issue; rather there is a
difference of opinion among the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them).
Some of the scholars regarded it as permissible to wipe over the khuff even
if it does not cover the ankles; this is the view of Ibn Hazm and was
narrated from al-Awzaa‘i. Other scholars disallow that, as is the view of
the fuqaha’ of the four madhhabs. 

It
says in al-Mughni (1/180): He should not wipe except over the
khuffayn or whatever takes their place, such as those that are cut down, and
the like, provided that it goes further than the ankles. What that means –
and Allah knows best – is anything that takes the place of the khuffayn in
covering the place that must be washed, and in which it is possible to walk,
and it is firm by itself. The one that is cut down is a short khuff. It is
only permissible to wipe over it if it covers the place that must be washed
in wudoo’, and does not show the ankle because it is tight or tied. This is
the view of ash-Shaafa‘i and Abu Thawr. But if it is cut lower than the
ankle it is not permissible to wipe over it. This is the correct view
narrated from Maalik. It was also narrated from him, and from al-Awzaa‘i,
that it is permissible to wipe over it because it is a khuff in which it is
possible to walk and is similar to that which covers. But in our view it
does not cover the place that must be washed, so it is more like a slipper
or sandal. End quote. 

Ibn
Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If the khuffayn are cut below the
ankle, then wiping over them is permissible. This is the view of al-Awzaa‘i.
It was also narrated from him that he said: The muhrim (pilgrim in ihram)
may wipe over the khuffayn that are cut beneath the ankle. Others said that
they cannot be wiped over unless they come above the ankle. ‘Ali [i.e. Ibn
Hazm] said: It was narrated in a saheeh report from the Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he instructed people to wipe
over the khuffayn, and that he wiped over the socks. If there had been a
specific limit, he (peace be upon him) would not have omitted to mention it.
So it must be the case that anything that can be called a khuff, sock or any
other footwear that covers the feet may be wiped over. End quote from al-Muhalla
(1/336). 

The
fact that the four madhhabs agree on a matter does not mean there is
consensus on it, and the fact that the Rightly-Guided Caliphs agreed on a
view is not to be regarded as consensus, so in the case of anyone of lesser
standing this point is even more apt. 

It
says in Madhkirat Usool al-Fiqh by Shaykh Muhammad al-Ameen ibn
Mukhtaar ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him): It is not regarded as
consensus if most of the scholars of a given era agree upon some matter,
according to the majority of scholars. Ibn Jareer at-Tabari and Abu Bakr
ar-Raawi said: For one or two scholars to have different views does not
undermine the consensus of the scholars. Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him)
agreed with this point, but the majority of scholars stated that what
matters is the view of all the scholars of the ummah, because infallibility
belongs to all (when they agree on an issue), not just some. The argument
for the opposite view is that the view of the majority should be heeded and
the view of the minority should be overlooked.

End
quote from Madhkirat Usool al-Fiqh (1/156) 

It
also says:

The
agreement of the four caliphs does not constitute consensus according to the
majority. The correct view is that it constitutes evidence, not consensus,
because consensus can only occur if all are agreed. 

And
Allah knows best.