Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170415164119/@comment-10473115-20170418012118

I've reviewed the whole Mister/Mr. discussion again. I agree that the end result was good. Community consensus accepted by everyone. However, process leading to that leaves a lot to be desired.

Dispute originated from the proposed page move by Annabell on Mr. Beckar (Earth-616). Adour challenged that move and discussion continued on its talk page. On that discussion Adour noted that Shabook has moved many Mister pages Mr. without an explanation possibly for just personal preference. My guess it that Adour hadn't noticed that before. I don't have any grievances about these actions. Shabook had even tagged many pages for renaming without anybody opposing and the pages were moved. So when given the moving powers, it was normal to continue renaming without any discussions or explanations. It was also acceptable for Adour to call it as personal preference because that it was. It was given in the context of the discussion to determine is there a policy. There weren't any policy for the titles at that point so only way to decide which is better was personal preference. I don't understand why Shabook takes it as a personal attack. Without a policy, we all edit based on personal preferences and it comes to personal attack only when someone is accused to imposing personal preference over site policy. I also want to add that I didn't found any mentions about personal preference from the discussion which ensued.

Then we should give kudos to Annabell for again trying to seek larger consensus for the issue. There weren't much discussion before Shabook arrived to it few weeks later. He answered to the thread and continued by moving two pages without a discussion. He had moved one page before that since the start of the discussion but we should assume that he haven't noticed the opposition before he answered to the thread. But I think that moving those two pages after Adour has opposed it, was a misuse of content moderator rights. When Adour confronted those actions, explanation was very weak: "I don't think it's so big a topic". I'm not going to demand any further explanations or apoligies but that's not acceptable.

After that I saw false arguments in the following discussion. Shabook presented a list of current status of how many pages were titled Mister and how many were Mr. Current state of articles don't necessarily present a consensus and that argument should be avoided. Adour also noticed that Shabook had moved half of the pages himself. Shabook also used the same argument as in this thread that some of the pages were moved by others and he has just placed a move tag. That's also nonvalid argument because the pages should be moved if there's no opposition. That don't necessarily mean a consensus, it could also mean that other's haven't noticed it. That why it's important to have written policies and not to induct the policy from the current situation. Then Shabook argued that Adour seems to be only one to disagree and it's unlikely that he could convince everyone else. At that time, there were only two users who have opposed Adour's opinion so that kind of comment wasn't helpful in the light of this thread.

After a month from that, few additional opinions/votes had been placed, mine included. Annabell counted those and the result was four to two in favor of Shabook's opinion. Adour started to protest that one of the votes were given by uneligible voter and a new voting will be held on a admin board. Me and Shabook protested that decision on the basis that there have been two months for everybody to give their votes. I ultimately accepted the new voting partly because I saw that the policy voting hasn't been noticed on a admin board. My main reasoning was to ensure that everybody could walk away from the debate feeling community consensus is reached. I have also already admitted in this thread that I might have acted otherwise if the proposer of the new voting hasn't been an admin. I try not to let that influence me but there's always a desire to avoid possibly heated disputes between admins. We can live with an edit war but not with an admin war.

Adour started a voting thread on an admin board and after a week the result was five to two in favor of Shabook's stance. Shabook challenged Adour how long the voting will go on and for the last resort, Adour posted a plea for the vote on the personal walls of the unvoted staff. He didn't imply how to vote but just informed that the their vote is needed. I didn't like that at all and thought about challenging Adour for vote canvassing. Ultimately I decided that we don't have any policy against it, I have seen that kind of behaviour earlier in our site and I will remember that to make a policy proposal against that kind of behaviour.

That was my honest review of what's happened. Please inform if there are any errors. I also used few opinioted terms instead of just reporting but I felt that those were warranted.

I started this thread in an honest attempt to find a way to achieve better discussion environment and have been as honest in everything as I could be. When I see you two after that kind of process acting like completely innocent I'm disappointed. It's possible that I am one of the reasons for this feel of "toxic" atmosphere. I'm an adamant debater if there's no good arguments to change my mind. My style is also very straight and many times too sarcastic for others. I would have hoped that I would be notified where I crossed the line. Can you also take a step back and look into the mirror?