I think it's more down to the issue of "what is consensus". As usual it's a myth that these issues are being decided by consensus on Wikipedia, as there are two camps, even if one is far larger than the other.
I'm not suggesting we should be paralysed by seeking consensus, but rather recognise that consensus isn't achievable in many cases, and stop pretending - i.e. formalise a decision-making procedure in such circumstances (majority - not very workable either, authority - not very workable and open to bias, strength of arguments - who decides). As you may surmise, I don't have a suggestion of how we solve the problem - I'd just like to see the pretence of "consensus" scrapped - because at the minute, where consensus becomes unworkable, people stick their heads in the sand, randomly use whatever decision-making means they can, and then declare there to be consensus.
It's just not workable deciding on policy the way we are at the moment. Policy should pretty much be set in stone and only tweaked occasionally by some sane formalised means.
Zoney