User talk:Yonnua Koponen/precedent
Nice Job
Good stuff there Yonnua. I'm sure you don't mind if people comment with other precedences on the talk page, right? Also, I'm wondering, are you looking for the first case in each instance that set the precedence or is it good enough to just reference any case with a clear ruling?--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 21:48, 15 October 2009 (BST)
- I'm going through the admin archives page by page. I'm working on February 06 at the mo, and working my way up the page with every single case. So much 3 page.... *shudders*--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:51, 15 October 2009 (BST)
- This is pretty impressive. How are you deciding what constitutes a precident? Every unique case?--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 00:26, 16 October 2009 (BST)
This concept is still pretty dumb - an improvement on the policy, but still dumb. Giving wikilawyers extra tools with which to ply their trade is never a good idea. The merits of each case should be considered first and foremost; by making precedent so explicit you are setting the stage for people to take an almost robotic-like approach to forming opinions on A/VB. But hey, I mean don't let me stop you from working for that sysop-cred. Cyberbob Talk 00:51, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Correct- though my fears still reside in the fact that you are putting so much work into something that will usually be ignored or discarded. Look at some of the precedences you have there- "It was found in this case that vandalising several important wiki pages was vandalism."? "It was found in this case that spamming and advertising pages as a bot is grounds for immediate banning. "? Why bother? These things are so black and white I'd think I was two-tone colourblind, though they'll still be used by some users to disturb the current mechanism of things, demanding the precedences that they bring must be heard, and they'll cry bad-faith power-trip when we choose not to. You should be sifting this down to the ones where precedent is actually welcome- grey zones. And I mean very grey zones. We aren't incapable of making grey decisions based on the actual case at hand, you know. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:03, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Grey zones are precisely what I was talking about. I would venture to guess that almost every single possible "type" of case has been brought at some point; if you make it such that wikilawyers have INVIOLATE (which it isn't, but that never stops them) PRECEDENT as part of their arsenal then you can pretty much kiss any kind of on-its-own-merits treatment of cases goodbye. Cyberbob Talk 01:16, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- That's because, with a list like this, comes the expectation that it must be used; and not as a guide, but as a way that should dictate the ways in which the sysops rule. Throw out that idea, and it could be a helpful guide in the "when in doubt" situations. And we ignore those wikilawyers anyway, I guess. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:34, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- No, I made so that if somebody is loooking for a precedent, as I've seen them do many times, they don't have to search every single archive page, and would be able to just Ctrl F this page. I really don't think this SHOULD be used by every sysop, or in every case. This shouldn't be used to create new opinions, just to find precedents to back up existing ones.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 09:18, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- That's great, but it doesn't guarantee it will be used that way, in fact, quite the opposite. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:58, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Anyway, I think we'll find that by the time I get to the present day, all of the dodgy precedents will have been stopped by new precedents, so they won't cause a problem.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:52, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- That doesn't actually have anything to do with what DDR and I are saying. Cyberbob Talk 12:22, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Put it in the wrong place. It was meant to go under my other comment to Boxy.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:05, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- That doesn't actually have anything to do with what DDR and I are saying. Cyberbob Talk 12:22, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Anyway, I think we'll find that by the time I get to the present day, all of the dodgy precedents will have been stopped by new precedents, so they won't cause a problem.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:52, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- That's great, but it doesn't guarantee it will be used that way, in fact, quite the opposite. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:58, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- No, I made so that if somebody is loooking for a precedent, as I've seen them do many times, they don't have to search every single archive page, and would be able to just Ctrl F this page. I really don't think this SHOULD be used by every sysop, or in every case. This shouldn't be used to create new opinions, just to find precedents to back up existing ones.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 09:18, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- That's because, with a list like this, comes the expectation that it must be used; and not as a guide, but as a way that should dictate the ways in which the sysops rule. Throw out that idea, and it could be a helpful guide in the "when in doubt" situations. And we ignore those wikilawyers anyway, I guess. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:34, 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Grey zones are precisely what I was talking about. I would venture to guess that almost every single possible "type" of case has been brought at some point; if you make it such that wikilawyers have INVIOLATE (which it isn't, but that never stops them) PRECEDENT as part of their arsenal then you can pretty much kiss any kind of on-its-own-merits treatment of cases goodbye. Cyberbob Talk 01:16, 16 October 2009 (BST)
Why?
Are you using the oldest precedents you can find? Surely you should work backwards from the current VB archive. Policies and precedent changes. This one for example, impersonation isn't permissible, even on your own talk or user page. Signing a post as someone else on the wiki, that you made up yourself will get you a warning, no matter where you place it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:26 16 October 2009 (BST)
- Yeah, I started from the beginning, because then I wouldn't end up starting in the middle. (If I started now, then future A/VB cases would exist by the time I got to the beginning, and it's likely I'd miss some.)--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:51, 16 October 2009 (BST)
