And I don't mean a handful of WMF people agreeing with eachother.
Topic on Talk:Article feedback/FAQ
On English Wikipedia I didn't find consensus on w:Wikipedia:Village pump and its subpages (neither for "full" deployment or for removing the tool), but on Portuguese Wikipedia the consensus for using it is here.
It's probably all part of a streamlining process. Governance, progress, and improvement of the Wikipedia by consensus is often replaced by ideas implemented by small groups of the WMF staff, or small task forces of editors (fellowships) specially designated by the WMF. The main advantages are that decisions can then be reached and implemented more quickly, and decisions that are reached by consensus of the community can be declined by the WMF staff if they do not consider them to be appropriate. The disadvantages are that the smaller groups of WMF developers and deciders may sometimes not necessarily have the hands on experience, or extensive background knowledge to be truly addressing the needs of Wikipedia readers, editors, or the site software, and may not always accord sufficient audience to those outside their workgroup that do.
Who says that consensus is needed? en:WP:You don't own Wikipedia: the WMF does. They can do whatever they want with the English Wikipedia, including shutting down the whole thing, making the text run in red letters over a black background, or banning every 17th user simply because they feel like it.
But let me repeat for you what you've been told many times: Consensus is not a matter of people writing down that they do, or don't, agree with something. Consensus is a matter of people agreeing to do something.
If a tool is getting used (and it is), then there is a consensus for using that tool. We have exactly as much consensus for the "Edit this page" button as we do for the AFT: people are voluntarily using it, therefore people have agreed to use it. Nobody's forcing them use it: if they did not voluntarily agree to use it, then they would not actually use it. Their use constitutes proof of their agreement/their consensus. Even as defined at en:WP:Consensus, consensus is about an agreement to do something, not about messages on talk pages or jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
Who says that consensus is needed? en:WP:You don't own Wikipedia: the WMF does. They can do whatever they want with the English Wikipedia, including shutting down the whole thing, making the text run in red letters over a black background, or banning every 17th user simply because they feel like it.
That sounds so much NOT like this... X-Mas soon. Next time Jimmy wants to tell me something about freedom and democracy on WP I may just ignore it cos I saw how much the WMF really cares about the community. As mentioned before, it reminds me of mafia style tactics...
So my guess was right and a handful of WMF people agreeing with eachother is all that is needed to add an useless tool like this to all articles on WP. Sure, I don't have to use it and can hide it. But the majority is logged out and can't disable it. Instead 99% of the viewers are faced with useless fake/fan/hate votes as if it were crappy youtube video pages. The image of WP is not increasing that way and new editors won't join either just cos they see Buch is rated 2/5 (main goal of AFT as you said).