I have half a mind to ask for just a straight of ban of bringing it up.
This would be a blisteringly bad idea.
That aside… I seriously hate it when people downvote if you use X and not Y term. But isn't it their right to do so? Not a rhetorical question.
If they don't have a right to downvote simply for using a term that they don't like, then … where do we draw the line? People downvote for a lot of nitpicks. Echo most infamously, but he's hardly the only one, even amongst staff (as far as I recall). What counts as a nitpick? What doesn't? Even I, who have apparently upvoted more articles than literally anyone else on the wiki, will downvote articles if they don't grab me but also have some detail or even a single line that annoys me (when I otherwise might not have voted at all). Who's to say that's qualitatively different from downvoting for use of 'amnesiac' over 'amnestic'?
And I'm not really sure that Echo - and others - are actually wrong to vote this way. The argument has been made to me, somewhat convincingly, that votes are the only tool with which a user can encourage change in an article, and therefore if that change is important enough to a user, why shouldn't they be able to vote accordingly?
And why does it matter if it's a minority opinion, or if it's an opinion we as staff approve of or think isn't silly? Again, not rhetorical here.
And, would it make a difference if people voted this way, but were quiet about it? IE, if we asked people not to outright threaten "I'll downvote the shit out of your article if you use amnestic and not amnesiac" - but there's no consequence for them actually voting that way? (EDIT: And to be clear, this comes with its own pitfalls: for what reason are we censoring their perfectly valid, if disagreeable, opinions?)