Template Talk:SPI Case Status - My Case Status

Line break

In some terms, this doesn't require admin assistance. In others, it does. I would like approval to add a line break to this template, for aesthetics.â€" Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

New "awaiting info" status

Following some discussion on Vanja's talk page, it would seem that we need a new "status", or to modify an existing one. The current moreinfo/cumoreinfo says they're to be used solely when the case's filer has made a CUrequest. However, sometimes the clerks have to ask for more information/diffs when a case a filed even without a CUrequest (Vanja made a nice little message for that, found at User:Vanjagenije/Moreinfo). At the present time, we are limited to leaving these cases in either open status, or hold (but that isn't quite accurate either). We would either need a new set of statuses for when a clerk/CU requests more information but there was not initially a CUrequest, or we need to modify the existing "moreinfo" text not to limit its usage to when there was already a CUrequest. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note on the Clerks' noticeboard, but I'll also ping Callanecc directly, since you've done a lot of work on SPI-related templates and procedures in the past few months. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't hold considered for that purpose? It says "An SPI clerk has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments."
 â€" Berean Hunter (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I've always got the impression "hold" was used more as a "wait and see what happens" or "wait until X/Y other thing is resolved" than a "we're waiting for the filer to provide more info". "hold" seems more like an internal "don't touch this case until the SPI team says so", not a "please provide additional evidence". Maybe it's just how I see it and that's not what actually is but that's how I see current common practice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I agree. We really need this status, so that the cases waiting for more information are not mixed with those that are not yet reviewed. By the way, my message (User:Vanjagenije/Moreinfo) is just a copy of {{DiffsNeeded}}, just without "CheckUser declined" part. Just now, I realized that the same effect is made by using {{DiffsNeeded|none}}, so my template is actually redundant. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool, so yea, {{DiffsNeeded|moreinfo}} works for this purpose I guess, thanks for pointing me to that. But we really need a status to fit that and separate it from unreviewed cases. Another option would be for new cases to default to new "new" status, to make it clear they are unreviewed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

On the status, if it could somehow cue the case filer that would be good otherwise they may think that we are doing something in the background. More evidence needed or Awaiting response or something along those lines. Sometimes, I think that people get confused concerning the cases.
 â€" Berean Hunter (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd just change the wording of moreinfo to be for all cases where CU isn't needed and cumoreinfo for cases where CU has been requested (rather than it being for CUs to use). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Callanecc. No need to have two separate "more info" statuses for clerks and CheckUsers. I'm pinging other clerks/CUs to join this discussion: @Bbb23, Mike V, Richwales, DoRD, Ponyo, Tiptoety, and Reaper Eternal:. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If changing the status makes it easier for our overworked Clerks, then you'll get no argument from me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Mike V • Talk 17:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as we don't lose one of the pretty colors, I don't care one way or the other, whatever is easiest.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Without going as far as "losing" colors, me and Berean Hunter have been discussing a tweaking of some colors -- we've already smoothened yellow to gold and slain the ugly limegreen, but we'll keep at it until it looks good to everyone. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Callanecc. I don't see why we need to distinguish between whether a clerk or a checkuser is requesting more information. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't give a damn. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is  Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: You modified Template:SPI case status/core [1], but forgot to modify the documentation (Template:SPI case status/doc). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Done now, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The GroupNotice also needs to be updated... I feel like this could be some sort of transclusion of our status list but I can't seem to make it work so I'll just fix it up manually. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also updating Template:SPIstatusentry/color. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)