People at Wikipedia often argue just to argue. I've found that much to be very true at times. Even after a settlement/consensus has been reached, one of the contestants or even a random person who stumbles in without reading any of the prior discussion from a day before will start it all back up by suggesting whatever consensus was reached be undone and the cycle continues. It's an abuse of the "Wikipedia is always improving" philosophy since nothing is allowed to be static except for a few overriding principles...and even those are subject to change if there's enough upheaval. It's somewhat maddening if you try to surround the entire concept rather than focus on your own little slice of knowledge improvement.

Now, specifically about Worcester, there's one argument that people bring up that games the rules (which itself is suggested to be against the rules) but ends up convincing much of the masses...at least enough so that no consensus is ever reached (thus status quo is maintained with the UK Worcester as article "Worcester"). That argument is that US Cities are required by article naming convention to be named "City, State"), like "Worcester, Massachusetts". Thus, it will never actually reside at "Worcester" therefore that article name is freed up for Worcester, UK's information to reside there with a link at the top pointing to "Worcester, MA" and the disambiguation page.

It's a fairly sound argument except for the discussion on what the "primary use" of the word "Worcester" is. There's no reason not to put the dab at "Worcester" and point to both "Worcester, MA" and "Worcester, UK" from there. The "Boston" article actually has similar issues and the "New York" article frequently bounces back and forth between the state and the city and the dab.

Trying to freeze one version of Wikipedia and call it "right" is worse than trying to wrap your mind around how the entire dysfunction functions relatively smoothly. I usually assume that any argument on an article is pretty much a lot of chest-thumping nonsense (hell, half the time you can wait 2-3 months and just change the content anyways without anyone even noticing or caring at that point). Policies changes are a bigger deal because that's what everyone will quote when one of these dust-ups occurs and there's actually a discussion on the article naming/dab policy page surrounding clearing up how to determine an article name's "primary use" to prevent this whole article moving discussion in the first place.

Try http://www.google.co.uk and the results will be quite different.