User talk:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js

SPI Icons

 * The script uses "self-endorsed" when you both request and endorse a CU check, either for a brand new case you have started, or for an otherwise open case that was started by someone else but whose original filer did not specifically request CU for. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't use the scripts, perhaps MikeV can provide input. I would assume you would just change the status= to "endorsed" with a note in the clerk section as to why you're endorsing checkuser for the case, especially if checkuser wasn't requested by the person who opened the case (such as here).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And that's why I don't use the scripts I suppose. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , you seem to be saying the script should not, in fact, use the "self-endorsed" wording when a clerk endorses a CU check for a case opened by another party without a CUrequest; did the last script update, so they could probably change that around also if need be. The rationale is that if no CUrequest has been made, you cannot endorse anything. For an open case without a CUrequest, you have to request CU, then self-endorse said request (which is done in a single step by the script). ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, to endorse a case "by hand" you would change the template from to  and use the  template under the SPI clerk header. The script, while helpful, does have a few drawbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike V (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll try to catch Callanecc and see if they can't change the script's functionality to use the "endorsed" wording for already open cases. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It just seems redundant. It says "Checkuser requested" followed immediately by "Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention". Why not just the second icon and verbiage? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is a technical procedural difference between the case's filer opening the case with a CUrequest and a clerk endorsing it, and the case's filer opening the case without a CUrequest, and the clerk both requesting and endorsing it, but as you say, I'm not sure the difference is relevant enough to use two completely different wordings/icons between the two situations. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, should I or should I not use the script?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The wording may need to be tweaked but we can deal with that separately. Sorry that your user page was hijacked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say sure, but in these situations you might want to make a manual edit until the script is touched-up. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we worked this out. I'll endorse such cases manually until the script is updated. And, don't worry for the hijacking, I like to see serious discussion on my talk page after tons of "why my page is nominated for deletion" discussions. Face-smile.svg  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Before I do anything can I clarify something: If CU has not been requested (i.e. status is not and a clerk requests and endorses which of the following options do we want (I've added them all for reference):
 * FYI . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not something like: "checkuser requested by clerk", making the endorsement implicit? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a logical proposal to me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the practice when I wrote the script was that the self-endorse template was used when a clerk both adds a CU request and endorse it immediately (as opposed to just adding a request and leaving the endorsement for another clerk). This actually pre-dates the SPI case status template - back then a clerk can add either or . The coding change is trivial, but in some cases the distinction might be useful, so I'd like to see the endorsement explicit. We can probably do something better than the current version, though. Perhaps Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk?  If there's anything else in the script that can be improved, I'll be happy to make changes. Just drop me a note on my talk page. T. Canens (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we must ask ourselves the question -- is it relevant to use separate wordings to denote the technical procedural difference between:
 * 1) a clerk filing a case themselves, then requesting & endorsing a CU check, and
 * 2) the case's filer opening the case without a CUrequest, and a clerk later both requesting and endorsing a CU check?
 * If the answer is yes, we could use
 * "Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser request self-endorsed by clerk" for the first scenario, and
 * "Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk" for the second.
 * If the difference is deemed irrelevant, then we could use "Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk" for either situation
 * And of course, we could use "[[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser request endorsed by clerk" for endorsement by a clerk of a CU check requested by someone else. I really, really, really love consistency and I think the general wording should be adjusted to be mostly the same between templates. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk" for the second.
 * If the difference is deemed irrelevant, then we could use "Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk" for either situation
 * And of course, we could use "[[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser request endorsed by clerk" for endorsement by a clerk of a CU check requested by someone else. I really, really, really love consistency and I think the general wording should be adjusted to be mostly the same between templates. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
I would like to propose some modifications to the script. First, the above discussed change was never made. Second, I would like to propose two new functions. One would be "Admin needed". That function would allow a non-admin clerks to change the status of the case to "admin" and to write a comment at the same time. Another function I'd like to see is to change the status of the case to "moreinfo" (+comment) when the CU is not requested. Theat is often needed, and it was recently agreed (here) to use that status when the Cu is not requested.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is way beyond my javascript ability, it'll definitely need Tim. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Working through the requests one at a time:
 * The self-endorsement issue - I don't see a definitive conclusion in that discussion, but I'm going to go with Symbol merge vote.svg [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|link=|16px|]] Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk unless someone strenuously objects. I think we've spent enough time on that bikeshed.
 * ✅ T. Canens (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin needed/more info (non-CU) - on non-CU cases those are mutually exclusive with adding a CU request, so I'm inclined to merge them into one checkbox. Do we need either for CU cases?
 * ✅. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Header level changes (WT:SPI) - should be a small regex fix. We may need to match both old and new versions at first, for transition.
 * - pending decision on the final implementation. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. T. Canens (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IP block notices (User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2015/3 - pinging ). The current behavior of the script w/r/t IP block notices is quite weird:
 * IPs are never tagged, and do not cause the prompt for master to appear.
 * But if the prompt appears for some other reason (i.e., you are blocking and tagging a sock) or if you are tagging a master, and if you picked a tag for the IP (which will never be used), then a block notice will be left.
 * But the block notice left would be some version of, which isn't suitable for IPs.
 * Ranges and IPv6 addresses are not supported at all and treated as if they were usernames.
 * This is pretty broken and needs fixing. I'm currently thinking about removing the misleading tag dropdown for IPs and replacing it with something else. How many different IP block notices should the script support? Just uw-block, or also, say, anonblock, schoolblock and checkuserblock?
 * Anything else ? T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the first three proposals by T. Canens (regarding the self-endorsement, regarding the Admin needed/more info, and regarding the Header levels). I don't know about the fourth issue (blocking and tagging IPs). I am not an administrator, so I don;t know anything about those functions. Regarding the "admin needed" function, it is usually needed for non-CU cases, but would be also useful to have it for the cases when Cu is requested.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I rarely use the SPI script and generally block and tag everything by hand; that being said I don't see anything of concern in the proposals above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm embarrassed to admit that other than close and archive, I never paid attention to the other checkboxes on the SPI script. The only one I use routinely is archive, and sometimes I use close, whereas other times I change the status to close by hand. I doubt my routine will change for IPs. I prefer to use the spi block link in the body. If I were going to use a block notice through the script, I would prefer something that said you are being blocked either for sock puppetry and/or block evasion and mention the master in the notice. I sometimes do that by hand, and I sometimes don't when I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential bug with SPI helper
Sorry if this is a repeat, looks like the script decided to sign twice when I closed a SPI with no action taken. Two is better than one, some may argue! :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  06:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New thing, and I think I know what's causing it. Checking... T. Canens (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . T. Canens (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Script not working
The script just stopped working for me today. The links are there, but when I click nothing happens. Does anybody else have similar problems?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a Mediawiki change tore out the legacy API used by the script. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect categorisation
Hey! I'm not sure when this happened, but at some point MediaWiki has started semi-evaluating template invocations within JavaScript files, and hence this script's calls to sockpuppet are causing it to be categorised in. Are you able to add  to the top of the script, and possibly do the same to the four other users who are showing up in the category? Thanks. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This has always been the case; I'm surprised nobody brought it up until now. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)