Last modified: 2013-04-11 13:04:28 UTC
This is a feature request, sorry if this is the wrong form.
It would be useful for projects such as wikipedia if there were some tool that could take a
list of two or more users and have the tool spit out an interrelationship table that would
reflect how much interaction any two users have with each other. This could be accomplished by
going to each user's contribution list, and then counting the posts made by each user to the
same page and multiplying them, or adding them, or possibly being able to select different
If Alice posted 10 edits to an article on chess, and Bob posted 5 edits to that same article,
in an overlapping period of time, then this would reflect some history between the two
editors. Threaded replies in the same subsection of a talk page should indicate an involved
The point of this tool would be for all the various wikipedia polls and voting procedures.
These polls unfortunately allow someone with a grudge to vote against a good user, or an ally
to vote in support of a bad user. Some sort of numeric indicator of interrelationship between
the editors would let people know how much interaction they've had with each other, and may
indicate some bias.
ideally, when selecting a jury, all the jurors should not have any prior history with any of
the parties involved. While creating a jury on wikipedia would be impossible, this would at
least give some objective measure that says this guy has been working on a lot of the same
articles as this other user, and may have some baggage coming with his vote. And a user with
little interaction between any of the users invovled should hopefully be a more neutral voter.
A way to easily display links to the overlapping edits that both users have on the same pages
would be handy as well.
being able to see a history of overlapping edits between two editors would useful in and of itself. On
wikipedia, when an editor accuses another editor of violating policy, it would be useful to do a quick
check of the history between the two editors to see if past grudges are being carried forward.
*** Bug 16062 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is this still needed now that we have checkuser?
fuelwagon / NSK: Could you answer comment 3?
No feedback, hence assuming WORKSFORME as checkuser exists.