Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Mass page protection functionality in the checkuser tool
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mass page protection functionality in the checkuser tool
- Problem:When checkusers find sockpuppets of blocked users, they have a list of tasks to do: (1) block the sockpuppet (2) place a note on the sockpuppet's user page (3) redirect the sockpuppet's talk page to the user page (4) protect the sockpuppet's user page and talk page so that they can no longer be written to. Often there is a large number of sockpuppets involved.
- 1-3 can easily be done en masse using features integrated into the checkuser tool, but 4 has to be done separately, for each page involved.
- Who would benefit: checkusers
- Proposed solution: add an option to the checkuser tool for protecting the user and talk page of users when blocking them.
- Further comments:
- Phabricator tasks: -
- Proposer: Pallertitalk 19:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- As an enwiki CU, I don't know about huwiki practices but on enwiki (a) we don't generally protect user/talk pages for sockpuppetry and (b) we generally use user scripts to supplement these kinds of functions. (It's rare for me to use the built-in blocking tool from Special:Checkuser.) Perhaps a script would help more than a MediaWiki change? KevinL (aka L235 · t) 00:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Voting
It is doubtful Your proposal is rather incoherent, so I am not sure if I should support this. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)- I've added a note above that the proposal was machine translated from Hungarian. As a friendly reminder, you may encounter broken English in global surveys, and that's totally acceptable. I say this in defense of those who don't speak English. I am not trying to influence your vote :) Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Having read both the Hungarian original and the English version, I don't think this is a machine translation. It'll be a long time before you can get a machine translation of this quality on such an arcane topic. But it's neither here nor there: the proposer has reworded the English version to make it easier to understand. --Malatinszky (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- That hurt, MusikAnimal :) --Tgr (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tgr Hehe sorry!! I for one understood it perfectly, as did the rest of the team :) My comment above was to defend non-English speakers, in general. I just assumed it was machine translation here since that is what we used for most non-English proposals. I should have checked the revision history. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Support Firestar464 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- Support --Malatinszky (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Robins7 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Tgr (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Sudonet (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Why not?
Oppose. I don't see mass page protection being done that often.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 17:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)- Oppose per Teles and KevinL. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose Since scripts could be used by the administrators to do the thing asked in the proposal above and since that proposal would not improve Wikipedia as a whole, just one wiki, nor even outside wikis which run on Mediawiki, then I have no reason to support this proposal. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)- Oppose not needed--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I disagree with the statements above, that it is not needed, since the most active CU on huwiki expressed, it is needed. The solution could be a script, it is not necessarily a change in the MediaWiki core. Samat (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
