SPI reporting doesn't check to see if the date header already exists

[atlight]

From WT:TW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ceredigion&oldid=442160192
Twinkle does not add on to the original Sock report, even if it's on the same day. --Σ 06:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

[atlight]

From Sigma's talk page:

I came across this Twinkle issue, and was wondering whether this is actually worth fixing. I imagine you wanted Twinkle to "merge" multiple SPI reports made on the one day. However, this would be quite difficult to code into Twinkle, and in circumstances where someone else made the other report earlier in the day, it would be confusing to have two reports from different users merged into one. What do you think? — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see a SPI report with several features.

• Date in the level 2 heading
• List of suspected socks, with link to the user compare report
• Signature of a user, which should be right above the "Comments by other users" section
• Content below, before the next level 2 heading or the end of the page

I too believe that this might be difficult to implement. But merging two reports from different users into one could be avoided by checking if the signature of the earlier report contains your username. →Στc. 05:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

[atlight]

That issue is by design when I redid the SPI report function. Merging new reports into old ones is difficult to implement, creates a lot more format dependency in the code, causes all sorts of problems with case status tracking (e.g., merging into a closed case? a case where CU has been endorsed? a case where a check has been run already?), and is very rarely useful. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Won't fix.