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! · ✉ 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Salvidrim: And that's why I don't use the scripts I suppose. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ponyo, 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; Callanecc 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! · ✉ 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, to endorse a case "by hand" you would change the template from {{SPI case status|open}} to {{SPI case status|endorse}} and use the {{endorse}} 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)[reply]

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! · ✉ 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! · ✉ 23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, should I or should I not use the script? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'd say sure, but in these situations you might want to make a manual edit until the script is touched-up. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: 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.

Vanjagenije (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, Bbb23, and Salvidrim!: Before I do anything can I clarify something: If CU has not been requested (i.e. status is not {{SPI case status|curequest}} and a clerk requests and endorses which of the following options do we want (I've added them all for reference):

CheckUser requested — Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention
Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention
Clerk endorsed

FYI Timotheus Canens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not something like: "checkuser requested by clerk", making the endorsement implicit? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a logical proposal to me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{RFCU|New}} or {{RFCU|Self}}. 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 Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk? @Mike V: 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)[reply]

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

"

Checkuser request self-endorsed by clerk" for the first scenario, and

"

Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk" for the second.

If the difference is deemed irrelevant, then we could use "

Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk" for either situation

And of course, we could use "

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! · ✉ 06:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]