Tue, Nov 26
Mon, Nov 25
Fri, Nov 22
@Prtksxna We also talked about the sticky highlights showing up in the filters at one point. Are you still planning to add that in?
Thu, Nov 21
While this is true, I would not presume everyone using CheckUser does frequent Special:Block too. I'm kinda leaning towards Prateek's point about providing some more guidance here as this UI is pretty different from what they are using currently.
@cwylo Do you have an opinion on this ticket?
Thanks for that information, @JJMC89. As I mentioned, we have no intention of doing that. :)
Wed, Nov 20
@Prtksxna assigning this to you for the mock and design specs.
@Prtksxna Putting this in your column for the couple mocks needed.
@dbarratt Has this been deployed already? In that case we can verify if the problem exists on the actual hewiki.
Thanks for doing an investigation on this, @dbarratt.
One strategy could be to utilize a parsing library. Sadly, a lot of user agents lie, so it might not be completely accurate.
Hmm, if we can have a sense of how inaccurate a parsed UA is (say, 80% or 20%) then based on that we can decide whether to display the complete UA or not. One of the use cases of this is to also know when the user might have spoofed their UA.
Tue, Nov 19
- Getting the data, sorting and pagination
- Display the data
- Building the filters and filtering
- Adding the new data records
Mon, Nov 18
@Prtksxna Flagging this for you.
I actually kinda like this bug. :)
Fri, Nov 15
Thu, Nov 14
Yeah, it can be a user or IP address. I'm a bit iffy about Add more... as it kinda means they already added something. How about Add username or IP address instead?
- Input box for the reason for the check.
- Placeholder text: Example: Investigating Apples for suspected sockpuppetry
Are we OK with the fact that Apples can be a real username?
Ooh, good catch! It could be Investigating User:... for suspected sockpuppetry. @Prtksxna thoughts?
Finally, just wanted to ask whether we should make the help text inline? It's the default and recommended for accessibility, though it does make the page a bit busier:
inline: true inline: false
Should be @Prtksxna's call.
Tue, Nov 12
@Tchanders Should we poke more people for code review on this?
I updated the description with the name after the previous round of comments. It's Special:Investigate.
- If config is set to unavailable, the special page URL points to a page with the title "No such special page" (similar to Special:Mute)
- If config is set to available:
- Unblocked user with 'checkuser' right sees the page title and a submit button that does nothing
- Blocked user with 'checkuser' right sees a user blocked error (similar to Special:CheckUser)
- User with 'checkuser' right sees the special page listed at Special:SpecialPages under the section "Users and rights" (similar to Special:CheckUser)
- User without 'checkuser' right sees a permissions error
Yep, all this sounds good. I will copy this to the task description. Thanks for more detail.
Nov 8 2019
@AronManning The redesigned version is so radically different that I don't expect folks to switch back and forth often. The idea is that we will remove the older page at some point and the new page will just be Special:CheckUser. Until then I would like the page name to be distinctive enough so when we share it people do not confuse the new page with the old.
I ran this by our Community Engagement folks and their recommendation was to go with Special:Investigate that Prateek chose for the mocks. So let's go with that.
@dbarratt ^ I'll update the ticket.
@AronManning Don't worry, I can take care of adding the mocks and expanding the task description. I think the mocks are likely to change based on the on-wiki feedback, hence I'm holding back on adding those for now.
Nov 7 2019
@AronManning Can you provide more context on this ticket? I'm not sure what's being requested and why.