There is a new blank/hello-world special page created by the CheckUser extension, titled CheckUser 2.0 behind a feature flag

I assume this means the url will be like: https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser_2.0
If we were to compare results from the old and new CU tools, then changing between the two would be more convenient, if the url was:
https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser2

I suggest that the page title be simple, without space, punctuation, and an extra zero.

Change 549696 had a related patch set uploaded (by Dbarratt; owner: Dbarratt):
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@master] Create a new special page for a new version of Check user

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/549696

@Niharika Is CheckUser2 the name we are gonna go with? Can we go for something that can stick even if the current CheckUser cease to exists?
Here are some ideas for the name of the page (I know words like "Investigation" carry some weight but maybe somehing similar to that(?)

• InspectUser
• ExamineUser
• CheckUserInvestigation

I personally dislike having numbers or versions as part of the name but that's a personal preference so I don't know how you all feel about it. And if we plan to change it later lets at least make sure we don't drag the versioning down to configs/flags and class names

Agree with not polluting configs etc with version numbers. Also, as @dbarratt pointed out, the latest version is already 2.5.

Are we likely to name the new page Special:CheckUser eventually? If so, coming up with a different name then changing it back might be confusing.

Special:CheckUser2 would be easier to switch between when testing. Some other ideas - Special:CheckUserNew, Special:CheckUserTest, Special:CheckUser2020. (We refer to the various iterations of the wikitext editor by their year.)

Imo CheckUserTest or CheckUserDev or CheckUserAlpha. I assume when it goes to production (new version enabled in config) it will replace the current CheckUser and this in-development name will be dropped.

@AronManning The redesigned version is so radically different that I don't expect folks to switch back and forth often. The idea is that we will remove the older page at some point and the new page will just be Special:CheckUser. Until then I would like the page name to be distinctive enough so when we share it people do not confuse the new page with the old.
I ran this by our Community Engagement folks and their recommendation was to go with Special:Investigate that Prateek chose for the mocks. So let's go with that.
@dbarratt ^ I'll update the ticket.

In T236981#5647987, @AronManning wrote:

Imo CheckUserTest or CheckUserDev or CheckUserAlpha. I assume when it goes to production (new version enabled in config) it will replace the current CheckUser and this in-development name will be dropped.

I expect it will be a while before we can make all CheckUsers happy enough to give up the old page. That can easily take anywhere between 1-2 years. We will have both pages working in parallel on production till the point users agree to let us drop the old page.

Let's not forget that there are non-WMF users of this extension. It may be reasonable to permanently name the new page Special:Investigate

Proposed acceptance criteria in more detail:

• Name tbc
• If config is set to unavailable, the special page URL points to a page with the title "No such special page" (similar to Special:Mute)
• If config is set to available:
  • Unblocked user with 'checkuser' right sees the page title and a submit button that does nothing
  • Blocked user with 'checkuser' right sees a user blocked error (similar to Special:CheckUser)
  • User with 'checkuser' right sees the special page listed at Special:SpecialPages under the section "Users and rights" (similar to Special:CheckUser)
  • User without 'checkuser' right sees a permissions error

@Niharika Does that sound OK to you? If so, the only outstanding question is the name.

In T236981#5656727, @Tchanders wrote:

Proposed acceptance criteria in more detail:

• Name tbc

I updated the description with the name after the previous round of comments. It's Special:Investigate.

• If config is set to unavailable, the special page URL points to a page with the title "No such special page" (similar to Special:Mute)

Yep.

• If config is set to available:
  • Unblocked user with 'checkuser' right sees the page title and a submit button that does nothing
  • Blocked user with 'checkuser' right sees a user blocked error (similar to Special:CheckUser)
  • User with 'checkuser' right sees the special page listed at Special:SpecialPages under the section "Users and rights" (similar to Special:CheckUser)
  • User without 'checkuser' right sees a permissions error

Yep, all this sounds good. I will copy this to the task description. Thanks for more detail.

Change 549696 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@master] Create empty page for Special:Investigate, a new version of Check user

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/549696

Change 550668 had a related patch set uploaded (by Tchanders; owner: Tchanders):
[operations/mediawiki-config@master] Enable CheckUser's Special:Investigate page on testwiki

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/550668

There's a separate task for enabling this on testwiki (T239936), so we can move this on to QA.

Special:Investigate is on thegoodplace.

• Unblocked user with checkuser right sees the page title and a submit button that does nothing

Tested with my own checkuser user.

• Blocked user with checkuser right sees a user blocked error (similar to Special:CheckUser)

I blocked my own user; saw block message when accessing page.

• User with checkuser right sees the special page listed at Special:SpecialPages under the section "Users and rights" (similar to Special:CheckUser)

Yes.

A logged out user does not see this.

• User without checkuser right sees a permissions error

A logged out user sees a permission errors.

There is not much else for me to test.