happy.melon.wiki wrote:

Perhaps we should just drop all these show/hide links, and make any deleted attributes be links to RevisionDelete for those who have the permission to see the content?

FT2.wiki wrote:

A nicer idea would be to replace the show/hide links, by a standard RevDel icon next to any applicable row or item:

• If the entry/diff/edit summary etc has SOME RevDel action, a user who CAN view or change the RevDel flags and view the edit (admin or oversighter etc), can click the icon to access RevDel for the revision, or hover to view the RevDel info.

• If the entry/diff/edit summary etc has SOME RevDel action, a user who CANNOT view or change the RevDel flags and view the edit gets a similar icon in a darker shade or with an "x" motif, and a hover saying "Some items in this edit have been removed from view."

• If the entry/diff/edit summary etc has NO RevDel action, a user who CAN view or change the RevDel flags sees a similar icon with an "h" motif. Clicking leads to the revDel view for that revision, hovering shows the message "Click to hide data in this edit".

• If the entry/diff/edit summary etc has NO RevDel action, a user who CANNOT view or change the RevDel flags is not shown any icon next to it.

FT2.wiki wrote:

But that's a different point. The issue here is specific to "hide username" in the blocking function (or elsewhere) removing the trail for users who need to be able to follow it.

(In reply to comment #0)

REQUEST:

If the user viewing material is an oversighter or otherwise would be allowed to
see or modify the "hide username" setting, then the username appears as
"[deleted] (show/hide)" or "[hidden] (show/hide)" in lists and other places,
not just be omitted.

The only place where the name is just omitted is the sp:listusers page AFAIK.

FT2.wiki wrote:

(In reply to comment #4)

The only place where the name is just omitted is the sp:listusers
page AFAIK.

Thanks, that's what I wasn't sure of. Can it be made a "[deleted/hidden] (show/hide)" there as well?

FT2.wiki wrote:

I copied the unrelated stuff in comment 1-2 to bug 18577 instead, to keep this one simple.

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

Have we verified that there is or isn't a problem with workflow for checkusers/oversighters trying to track users?

FT2.wiki wrote:

Yes. (It has been a problem or else it wouldn't have come up and needed reporting.)

See the original post:

"I have been trying to sort out a checkuser/oversight case, and noticed I've
been greatly hampered by the "hide username" function. While this is extremely
valuable, it also makes it near impossible to track down edits of a disruptive
user, which is precisely the kind of work oversighters and checkusers often
have to do."

"(More generally, in the past it's been possible for anyone to track a change
such as a rename, move, oversighting, or deletion in the logs and history
provided they are able to see the source entries (ie have the appropriate
admin/oversight rights needed). We need to not lose that ability with these new
tools.)"

(In reply to comment #5)

(In reply to comment #4)

The only place where the name is just omitted is the sp:listusers
page AFAIK.

Thanks, that's what I wasn't sure of. Can it be made a "[deleted/hidden]
(show/hide)" there as well?

Done in r54035

• Bug 18805 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***