Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request analysis by BD2412 (talk)

Apparent omission
I notice you don't have User:Baseball Bugs listed under "support moving back". I realize he didn't actually vote, but he made his position perfectly clear. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, ect., I think everyone who opined should be included in your considerations. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the views expressed by User:Baseball Bugs. He is certainly free to register an unequivocal !vote in the discussion; and you are certainly free to remind him of that. bd2412  T 20:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I'm confused. You added Jimbo Wales, even though he hasn't commented on Talk:Chelsea Manning at all, as he has made his viewpoint known on his personal talk page. However, you haven't added Baseball Bugs, who has repeatedly commented on Talk:Chelsea Manning, because he didn't specifically support the move in the "Survey" section. Strange. --  tariq abjotu  12:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. First, User:Baseball Bugs is still free to register an unequivocal !vote. Second, Jimbo's expressed views are being cited in the discussion. Counting Jimbo's opposition is a useful step in between, on the one hand, ignoring his stated views and, on the other hand, assigning those views the sort of dispositive status that some editors seem to. Third, this page is not "the close", even though I am likely to propose elements of it to the other admins on the panel to be incorporated into the close; this page is basically a sandbox for me to keep track of things for my own sanity in this process. Finally, with the number of editors participating in this discussion, and the number of views being expressed, it is highly unlikely that the outcome will turn on the comments of any individual editor (or even any handful of editors). 13:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that. You're just keeping notes, and I realize the discussion isn't going to hinge on one editor's position. It just seems strange that you'd list one and not the other on this page, that's all. Also, in case you haven't noticed, TParis switched to oppose. --  tariq abjotu  15:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had not yet seen TParis's switch (although I plan to make a thorough review of the !votes once the discussion closes, and the other reviewing admins will certainly also do this). bd2412  T 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So now you have Bugs and 2 others listed as "out of process support", openly stating that these opinions will not count toward the final result, as they didn't actually vote. Yet Jimbo's opposition isn't listed as an "out of process oppose". As I said on your talk page, I realize you're in an unenviable position; no matter who closes this and no matter what the result, there's going to be a move review. I just don't understand why you would count Jimbo's not-a-vote opinion as a vote while denying three other (supposedly equal) editors the same privilege. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you should strike Jimbo's !!vote. He knows where the discussion is, if he wishes to participate. StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be stricken. I just don't think it should be given preference over three other editors who opined in the same manner as Jimbo. Jimbo has made it clear that he's not delivering an ex-cathedra proclamation. I don't think he wants his opinion treated differently than any other editor's, yet BD2412 has done just that. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These concerns are premature. I have not treated anyone's opinion like anything yet, I have merely made some very rough notes on the subject. When I do weigh anything, it will be as one part of a three-admin panel. As I have noted, the contents of this page are "not intended to reflect any predisposition as to the outcome of this discussion". Cheers! bd2412  T 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP
Sue Gardner posted probably the most detailed reasoning around BLP that I've seen yet, in the Aug 24 section. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this. bd2412  T 19:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Private Manning
There was a suggested compromise of naming the article "Private Manning". I think (but haven't checked) that everyone who commented on that suggestion also commented in the main request. It was closed with the comment "trending towards snow oppose", (it's in archive 5) but as a good faith alternative suggestion you may wish to make note of it as you do the "Peyton" suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. bd2412  T 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)