Oh Mark, for shame! Why lie? I didn't get banned from the Clitoris article for any such thing. I didn't get banned from it at all. I was banned from removing the picture that upset several editors. You pretended you had a "unanimous" "consensus" then too. I didn't constantly run any polls. That's a downright lie too. Why would I? I don't think polls demonstrate consensus and I oppose their use to settle content disputes. I've expressed that view many, many times. The dispute on clitoris in fact centred around a group of editors who were bullying minority-view editors because they had won a vote. They largely refused to discuss the salient issues because, they believed, they had won a vote and that was that. (Careful Tony Sidaway watchers will note that on Talk:Clitoris he was insistent that winning a vote was the same as having a consensus but on Talk:something about B roads, he had changed his tune and thought that votes were evil. Like most of the people who voted here, it's one rule when it fits your POV, another when it doesn't.) This title is shockingly POV. That you can line up a bunch of editors who share the POV that it pushes to vote and say no it's not doesn't actually not make it so, but I've given up trying to get editors to accept that the proZionist stance that is so common in your home country is not actually "neutral". I advise the other editors here that their commitment to NPOV will not be rewarded, because it simply is not shared by everyone here.