":(in reply to you at my Talk page) Umm, thanks for the obscure link. I tried finding some such discussion, and just couldn't. Mind you, from what I've read of it so far, I find a bunch of people arguing, quite rightly, about an absurdly complex system of voting, rather than the question itself.... The fact that X is supposedly a troll should not have us all scurrying to do weird stuff because X doesn't like it; if Osama bin Ladin likes bananas, should I deny myself a banana split? One of the cardinal principles, supposedly, of Wikipedia, is that this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in democracy. Since it's quite impossible to avoid the latter — see for example the POV that passes for consensus under Adolf Hitler, Terry Schiavo, split infinitive and many other articles, complete with virulent aspersions on the minority and constant reverting, suggests that it is not — it all boils down to the fundamentally American myth that everything is solvable by democracy at the lowest denominator. Here we have a question requiring very very little specialized knowledge (everyone knows the Pope is ""Your Holiness"") therefore everybody feels we can chip in usefully. Majority voting on this kind of thing leads to stuff that is just plain wrong (a very large majority of people refer to ancient theaters as ""amphitheaters"" — it's still wrong). Wikipedia's credibility is at stake; and something this obstinately stupid, held to as policy, you tell me, to spite some poor schmuck in Canberra — doesn't make me feel good about editing anything; I mean, what good am I doing?   

 "