User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means

It means that whoever manages to get a controversial change sneaked in wins as long as [s]he manages to create a great debate for the reversal of the change. This is particularly true when institutional bias for this tactic is built in Wikipedia's policies. For instance, creating a WP:POVFORK requires only one editor, but deleting it at WP:AfD requires many, which in controversial areas (nationalism etc.) practically guarantees a "no consensus" outcome. When a simple majority favors reversal, one can always invoke ever more stringent standards like "it would not pass an WP:RfA" while ignoring how the contentious stuff popped up without being subjected to such high standards.