User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

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.