In T387600#10769263, @Tchanders wrote:

@KColeman-WMF Should this task block T386492: IP auto-reveal: Assign the IP auto-reveal right to user groups, which is essentially the deployment task?

In T337267#10755001, @Tsevener wrote:

@HNordeenWMF

does "unregistered edits" at the top currently total both Temporary account edits & previous IP edits?

Yep it does! For example the Test Wiki IOS page shows 89:

Which is an aggregate of anonymous and temporary endpoints:

https://test.wikipedia.org/w/rest.php/v1/page/IOS/history/counts/anonymous
https://test.wikipedia.org/w/rest.php/v1/page/IOS/history/counts/temporary

In T389299#10766456, @Tchanders wrote:

Do we have a name for this icon, something generic enough for re-use by other features?

As discussed with @Tchanders - Trust and Safety Product team can add the icon to Codex and OOUI. We will pull this into our current sprint.

Would it be possible to get a screenshot of what the verification current UX/email looks like? Thanks!

Agree that we should add in the local contribs link as suggested. This link was always intended to be part of Special:GlobalContributions as we are aiming for feature parity with guc.

In T385285#10519198, @A_smart_kitten wrote:

Thanks for raising this! The spec for Special:GlobalContributions follows the same functionality as https://guc.toolforge.org/ (which also includes a username that links to the relevant project). As mentioned on the other task, there should ideally be a contribs link next to the talk link.

On the other hand (to what I’ve written above), given that (iiuc) the spec is to include the account links, and therefore the current implementation matches this part of the spec, maybe the simplest thing to do would be to decline this task? I admit that I don’t know if I’d consciously picked up on guc.toolforge.org listing the account name alongside every edit before.

@kostajh Yes, we should add the contribs link and it looks like we have the task in for this sprint: T390414: Edits in Special:GlobalContributions should link to local Special:Contributions

Thank you @DTorsani-WMF for reviewing the icon and helping me figure out how to get it into the Figma library!

Resolving this task as design spec has been finalised.

Having discussed with @kostajh - we agreed to remove "groups" from the first release of the User Info Card due to technical complexities.

I agree with @AAlhazwani-WMF that this message is displaying at the wrong moment in the journey.

Mediawiki page is updated: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design

@Niharika wrote:
@KColeman-WMF Is the part under the "User rights log" section part of the design?

This task is now complete. I created a sub-task for sharing the results on-wiki: T391400: Temporary Accounts: Share minor pilot survey results

I added design mockups for the following scenarios:

In T384702#10657769, @sgrabarczuk wrote:

Thanks for the ping, Katie. Yeah, I hypothesize that information about someone having the administrator or CU role or one of certain global groups (global sysop for example) would be very valuable, whereas information about roles like importer, file mover, or account creator may be less useful.

In T384702#10660591, @kostajh wrote:

Maybe instead of groups, we should show [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Autoconfirmed_users | autoconfirmed status ] via an icon + tooltip next to the username in the card]? Otherwise, I think we'd need more information about how to work out which groups are useful to show. I could see that getting complicated quickly.

In T363375#10659114, @lwatson wrote:

We released Popover in the latest Codex release v1.21.1 and it will ride the train next week!

cc: @kostajh & @KColeman-WMF

@kostajh - There is one remaining spec that needs to be finalised:

In T389299#10654959, @CCiufo-WMF wrote:

We'll discuss this at our next refinement session.

I explored some different icon options for the Checks data point (which displays the number of checks made in CheckUser). Feedback from admins and Stewards is that the magnifying glass is the icon they most associate with CheckUser: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_checkuser_icons

Note: a new icon will be created for the ToggleButton. T389299: icons: Add IP Auto-reveal icon to Codex and OOUI

Thanks @Niharika - I will resolve this task as I think we have all the answers we need now.

• Create copy spreadsheet with URLS for each data point
  • Create separate task for temp accounts info popover
  • Agree on max number to display for "groups" and "active wikis"
  • Confirm "Add user page to Watchlist" interaction (answer: adds to wishlist and toast displays)
  • Confirm "Block user" interaction (answer: it goes to Special:Block)

Final designs for registered user info card:

For clarity, this how IP Info currently displays the information:

In T387923#10636210, @Tchanders wrote:
This makes sense to me too. We could change the text at the top of the page to say: "Showing results from the last 90 days, for all wikis where you have the right to view contributions. Limited to 20 results per wiki. Bot edits are not included." Tagging @KColeman-WMF for visibility, since you've been working on the messages.

In T363375#10636618, @lwatson wrote:

We're targeting to release Popover next week (~ March 18th). If we encounter any delays, we'll push its release to two weeks out, the week of April 1st.
cc: @kostajh @KColeman-WMF

Survey analysis is complete. The final design for this experiment will include the following recommendations:

Survey is closed and analysis is completed. See main task for results.

@Tchanders wrote:
Some more discussions about this dialog are happening elsewhere. Mentioning here for visibility:

• It was decided that we should change "+10m" to "+10min", in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
• We're discussing the styling of "+10min". In the designs, it id progressive, but the Codex component doesn't allow two progressive actions. The question is should we change the design, or should Codex allow this?

In T388688#10629176, @Tchanders wrote:

@KColeman-WMF @Niharika This was proposed in the engineering meeting as a mitigation to someone writing a script that sets the expiry time very far in the future. Does it seem OK with you?