Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Archive/Automatically mark stupid admins

Random proposal ►◄ Archive The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Automatically mark stupid admins

N Proposes a social/policy change rather than a technical feature

Problem: Often, precious time and efforts could be saved if admins which have previously behaved in a problematic way (e.g. not wanting to understand an issue, not following procedures, or ~~being plain stupid and/or drunk~~) could be marked in some way. Then, according to the user's preferences, Mediawiki would either display their user name with yellow highlighting, not display their contributions at all.
Wem würde dieser Wunsch helfen: All Wikipedians, but especially non-admins.
Lösungsvorschlag: See above. Additionally, Mediawiki could highlight admin's user names in red if they have previously issued bans during ~~stupid and/or drunk~~ phases.
Weitere Kommentare: Not really necessary, but this proposal is both a worthy and useful one.
Phabricator-Tickets:
Antragsteller: Keimzelle (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Keimzelle, please don't revert MusikAnimal's edits. He's a member of the Community Tech team and he can decide to archive proposals.

In the case of this one, we think you're pointing at a social problem and suggesting a technical solution. MusikAnimal has archived your wish because this social problem doesn't necessarily require technical solutions, so it doesn't need the CommTech's work. It may begin with you changing how you think about and address to others. This proposal will stay archived. Take a look at how to make a good proposal and maybe look for problems that are technical in nature? Thanks for your understanding and participation in the Survey. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): I invest a lot of my free time, my language abilities and also my scientific expertise into Wikipedia. I have also spent countless hours fruitlessly discussing issues with administrators so that I grew extremely frustrated with them. Since more than a year I have not seen any administrator that I can entrust with making a justified, somewhat conscious and, err... sober decision. I guess I will have to discuss this issue with @MusikAnimal:, as he is the person in charge. Thankyouverylittle, --Keimzelle (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keimzelle, both MusikAnimal and I are members of Community Tech. This issue is something neither of us can work on, sorry. We welcome issues that are technical in nature, though. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SGrabarczuk (WMF):, I proposed a technical solution. Username highlighting helps Wikipedia contributors to avoid interactions with problematic administrators, and thus it improves the usability of Wikipedia as a whole. We can steer clear of problematic individuals and invest much more time in fruitful collaboration. If you have any criticism regarding my proposal, I'm very happy to improve it. But if you cannot see that my proposal proposes a useful technical solution then I'm sorry for Wikipedia. It's the best social project there is, but yet dealing with Wikipedia admins is the most soul-sucking and nerve-wrecking thing I've ever experienced.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at Keimzelle's block-log will show you, he's a very problematic user, usually because of massive violations of de:WP:KPA.

Of course this is a solely social problem, and I don't think there will ever be any consensus about who to flag that way, especially as admins can be voted out of adminship if a small amount of users wants it this way. Keimzelle is currently on a destructive mission against the deWP, this is part of it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's just be infinited for his massive antisocial behaviour in deWP, it was overdue. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]