This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have taken on Lazulilasher as a clerk trainee, if any other current clerks have a specific user in mind that they would like to take on as trainee's please contact them now. Tiptoety ^talk 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated ((RFCU)) to handle 2 letters. This will be useful for some cases, especially if the codes are updated (as looks likely):

Old codes:

• B + C -- Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee andongoing, serious pattern vandalism.

Proposed new codes:

• A + S -- Abuse and avoidance of scrutiny
• V + U -- Vandalism and other undetected issues

The default is "one letter only"

How it works

RFCU now includes a 2nd parameter No2ndLetter. if this is left then there will be no 2nd letter, if it's changed then a 2nd letter will appear.

• ((RFCU|LETTER CODE|No2ndLetter|Optional status))
• ((RFCU|LETTER CODE|2ND LETTER CODE|Optional status))

I have also added indicators to the messages and updated the documentation. Should not change again other than new letter codes.

If the clerks and CU's prefer this done a different way, decide a consensus and I'll update to do it that way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since "finished" is a fairly useful name and may be needed elsewhere, I've switched it for the less pretty but more consistent name ((SPIclose)).

The other change is, the template for closing a case can take a parameter, ((SPIclose|archive))", so we can now distinguish between "a patrolling random user says the case is ready for close" vs. "a checkuser or clerk says to close and archive it"... if anyone can patrol, then premature archiving is a Bad Thing. This way there's a chance for scrutiny if anyone wants it. If not then any clerk can add "|archive" and the bot will archive it. Also because then nixeagle doesnt have to code a 24 hour delay which is messy :)

So a users' close via ((SPIclose)) will appear under "pending close" and is able to be reviewed; a clerk or checkusers close using ((SPIclose|archive)) or adding |archive to the user's close, is trusted and instant-archived. I've asked eagle to see if the bot can alert for non-clerks attempting to use "archive".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sam Korn points out that it's better to sign under an RFCU template than next to it, so when the status changed to "checked" it doesn't look like it was the clerk who did the check.

((RFCU|A|B|endorse)) .....
Endorsed/declined - ~~~~

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken on Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs) as a trainee clerk Mayalld (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Like Mayalld did) Can everyone please make sure to let me know if you pick a trainee so I can add them to the bots list of Clerks? Otherwise, the bot will not let them do certain tasks. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could another clerk take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Runtshit please.

I am concerned that by running CU every time this idiot stalks his victim, we are giving him the recognition that he desires. Blocks on underlying IPs aren't actually proving effective, and I am inclined to go against the grain, and deny this CU request (it is borderline fishing in any case). Another pair of eyes would be appreciated. Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try and look later today if another clerk does not beat me. Tiptoety ^talk 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented. Synergy 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we want to handle archiving on this page? The Arbitration clerks noticeboard is not regularly archived as the majority of what goes on there is simple day to day activities that do not require archiving. Instead a clerk simply blanks a thread when it has been sitting unedited for a while. If there is a discussion that requires archiving (clerk promotions, procedure changes, ect..) it is moved the a subpage (archive). Do we want to do the same here? Or do we want to just have cluebot archive it like every normal talk page? Tiptoety ^talk 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing it the way the arbcom clerks do it doesn't sound too bad, but we would need to define what should and shouldn't be archived. In the long run, cluebot might be our better option (because I'm not at all sure how many people are watching this page, so this would leave only a few clerks who would be archiving, and what happens when they go MIA for a week or so? just something to think about) but I really don't have a preference. Either way is fine. Synergy 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I too could care less. I am just noticing there are a few things that could do with archiving here. Anyone else have an opinion one way or the other? Tiptoety ^talk 21:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot II does talk page archiving, I think. If we agree on the parameters, we can forget about needing to archive again. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I support letting a bot archive. Much easier, IMO. --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that we should only archive things that will actually matter in about a month or longer, so thinks like 'I am getting a new trainee' and 'X needs help with Y' really don't need archiving. Perhaps we just set the bot to only archive pages we put a template on (like perhaps ((clerkarchive)))? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Synergy 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's too much work in my honest opinion. To me, we have two options: 1. Archive everything using a bot. OR 2. Archive the few things we want to keep by hand. Tiptoety ^talk 01:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree there, just tagging a discussion, and any part of its duration (such as this one) that you know will be important, then a bot will take care of only archiving when the certain time has elapsed, and generating an index of all the posts as well. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

/me shrugs Someone just be bold please and set something up? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah Ideally we just redirect this page to WT:SPI and use the archiving solution there. :P. I'm not much of a fan of this private page thats only for clerks. Much better that everything gets discussed and done on the main page IMHO. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

After discussion with Tiptoety and Synergy, I was directed to leave a note here indicating I am interested in becoming a trainee clerk. KnightLago (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be training KnightLago officially from now on. Welcome to the team. :) Synergy 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll also be training Avruch. Synergy 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have enough now. 12 active clerks + 5 inactive clerks + an unspecific number of admins patrolling is more than enough to handle the current workload. Otherwise too many cooks spoil the broth. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the 12 clerks are active. Synergy 09:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We've taken on quite a few trainees recently, so probably time for a breather to ensure that we can devote sufficient time and energy to perfecting the trainees that we have! It might be useful if we were to look at times when clerks are active, to see if we have certain times of day/week when we aren't covered, and recruit to fill those gaps. Mayalld (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the number of trainees I have. :) I can devote plenty of time to training them, although they catch on fast. Most of the training is done on IRC anyway, so there is always a clerk available now. Synergy 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree that it is time to slow up on the clerk recruiting and focus on training the ones we have. I think it would be appropriate to reevaluate how many more clerks we need once we have finished with this most recent batch of trainees. Tiptoety ^talk 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowing down, at this time would be good, but just to figure out how many are needed. Also, we've had a great few days. We're down to two user cases, 6 cu cases and maybe two pending close as I write this. But. We're going to need more clerks, with my reasoning below Nix's comments. Synergy 20:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Several things, first off I keep forgetting this page exists, as such I think its probably a good idea to eventually consider moving the clerk page to WT:SPI, eg the page on the main process. This page is sorta hidden and makes clerks into a seperate "group" of users which is something I think should be discouraged as much as possible. Clerks are not in anyway special, their job is simply to make the process run smoother. (We do seem to be doing a fairly good job right now :) ).

Secondly as far as too many clerks, I don't think that can happen anytime soon. Ideally it should be possible for several active clerks to take time off for say... a week and the process not be impacted that much. Same as far as admins patrolling the pages. At the moment I think we have 12 clerks, but probably only 6 of them are active... ideally every case gets a lookover by a clerk, and each clerk only needs to look over 1-4 cases a day. The same goes with admins, believe it or not, actually closing the cases takes far more work then reviewing cases making sure the syntax is correct and that they are created under the right name. In light of that I'd like to see enough admins working on the process such that each can do on average 1 or 2 cases a day only. Right now we are close to that goal, but I think work can be done as far as getting a few more admins participating on a regular basis. I'd like to see around 7-10 admins active on a week to week basis. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have three levels here. Active, semi-active, and not active. Most of the trainees are semi-active (Avruch, Jake, Kanonkas, Paxse, KnightLago, PeterSymonds; Foxy Loxy is a bit more active), and that leaves Mbisanz, Mayalld, Nixeagle, OhanaUnited and me as full clerks in our active section. Heres the thing. Nix usually works more on the bot, and does mostly blocking, so he rarely gets to do "actual" clerking. Also, Mbisanz and OhanaUnited are /technically/ just a bit more semi-active (after looking over contribs and basing this only on how many cases per month, etc). Now, there isn't anything wrong with being only semi-active. It prevents you from burning out from clerking. It also is good to have them on the backburner when the more active clerks decide to edit an article from time to time. ;) Synergy 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that the experimental messagebox-on-case feature that I added has caused a bit of confusion, and that people seem split as to whether it is a good idea.

I'm not at all precious about stuff that I write, and if people can think of better ways of doing things that I've written (even if it involves deleting all of what I've written, and replacing it with something new, or saying "pile of crap, throw it away"), that's absolutely fine!

I tend to work by building a working example of how something might work so that it can be critiqued, which is exactly what we have here.

Several issues have been raised about the implementation as it stands;

1. It causes problems for the bot
2. The use made of it yesterday wasn't necessary, people can use watchlists
3. It duplicates the editnotice functionality
4. It hadn't been mentioned on WT:SPI

All of them very fair comments, which deserve a reply!

1. This can probably be easily handled, by putting the message page at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/messages/casename rather than WP:Sockpuppet investigations/casename/message. This would also make it easier for us to easily see which cases have message pages
2. Very possibly true, although in some cases, there will be a expert on a particular master who doesn't wish to watchlist, but who clerks might want to call on for assistance.
3. I don't believe that it does. Editnotice only appears when you edit the page. Doing the message like this ensures that it is seen BEFORE the admin/clerk starts looking at the merits of the case. Also, editnotice is restricted to admins
4. Indeed not. It is still experimental. If/when we decide that we want it, we will add it to the clerk instructions.

Mayalld (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at SPI procedures and policies, I have become interested in becoming a trainee clerk. I noticed below that some of the current clerks believe there are too many, and if that is the case, then feel free to say no. Otherwise, I would love to become a member of the SPI Clerking team! CanadianNine 14:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

With only around 400 edits and, I think you need to develop more experience before accepting a trainee clerkship. SPI is a sensitive area that requires quite a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia. Clerks are expected to know when to accept or deny often difficult CU requests that require the ability to research thoroughly into tricky situations. At this point I'd say "not yet"; it'll only be beneficial for you to have more experience. In the future, of course I'll happily reconsider. Thanks for your interest. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply CanadianNine 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, everyone! I previously talked to Tiptoety and expressed an interest in becoming a clerk. He advised me to post a note here. So, with that being said, would it be ok if I helped out? Icestorm815 • Talk 01:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I think I can try to teach you the basic. First you'll be a trainee, and after some work we'll see. Does that sound OK? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would work out great. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You will need to add your name to the list of active clerks with "(trainee)" next to it. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about that! That would kind of help. :D Icestorm815 • Talk 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the party! KnightLago (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Nixeagle bugged me a few months ago about doing some SPI work. I finally have some free time, so I figure I might as well help out here. If any clerk could be willing to take me along as a trainee, I would really appreciate that. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest NuclearWarfare! At this time though, I am afraid that there are too many clerk trainees and not enough people to train them. I think that if you waited a month or so, then asked again there would be more people able to take you on. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Tiptoety. I'll be sure to come back then, but in the mean time I think I'll hang around the IRC channel and the SPI cases and see if I can pick up the process just by watching, if that it OK? NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The channel is open to all. Syn 21:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Directed by Tiptoety here. I'd like to help out if I could as an SPI trainee. If anyone is willing to take me on as a student, I'd appreciate it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As Tiptoety mentioned above, we aren't in a position to formally take on new trainees just at present, so just hang on in there for a while. Looking in at the IRC channel to get a feel for it would be a good move. Mayalld (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I realise there are a few requests, I would like to express my interest in becoming a trainee clerk. I have been working with Jake_Wartenberg on SPI cases but I require a full clerk to be my mentor. Seddσn ^talk|^[1] 01:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that I can train you.  Unlikely that I'd steer you too much in the wrong direction.  Likely that you'd be fine as a clerk, but  Possible that you'll make a few mistakes. This jargon is of course  Unrelated to the matter at hand. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noting here, I had an email from someone who complained that past requests had been denied, and that Seddon was given unfair treatment, so I wish to clarify the situation. At the present time, most of the cases outstanding require an administrator. We have three active non-admin clerks that handle the workload effectively (Nathan, Synergy and Mayalld), so the real backlog often requires admin intervention. Seddon is an experienced user and with a lot of trust (Board of Wikimedia UK, MedCom, OTRS), wished to become a clerk, so I allowed it. I hope that clarifies the matter. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Currently, as anyone watching can see, our bot has been down for...at this point I can't be accurate. With Nathan, Jake, me, and Mayalld were are doing just fine. Our real issue here is competent, and willing admins. So far, the only requests we get is from non admins. While the sentiment is great and we appreciate the eagerness, it won't help us. If you really want to help us, whoever you are, pass an RfA and block socks for us. Its what we really need. Best. Syn 13:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

“Our real issue here is competent, and willing admins.” While I don't know whether I'm competent enough, I'd certainly be willing both to learn and to help in case you were willing to train me.— Aitias // discussion 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With regards to electing more CheckUsers in the upcoming election, will it follow that more clerks will be needed? MuZemike 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends how many are elected and what the clerk situation looks like at that time, I suppose. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The CU elections should have very little to do with our need for clerks. CU cases represent a small fraction of our cases. If the bot is not up in another week, and our other clerks do not come back, we will be looking for new clerks to train. Syn 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What clerks have been MIA? Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From a quick check, it seems that KnightLago hasn't been here in a month, two months for X!, and about six months for Paxse and Lazulilasher. Icestorm815 •Talk 05:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. But they are marked inactive. Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm back...I marked myself "active" ;-)Lazulilasher (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hurray! NW (Talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooh...thanks for noticing! And...uh...Wikipedia made youan admin while I was away? Wow...standards sure dropped :) Just kidding: I remain quite confident that you will handle the (very boring) job with aplomb. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know much about sockpuppet investigations, and I've only requested a couple or three investigations, but given the comment in the thread two above this one, it seems you might need another admin handy, and I've mostly been using my admin tools to close deletion and requested move discussions, with some occasional forays into the speedy deletion category and WP:AIV. However, I'd like to diversify, and this is something I'd really like to know more about, and I'm a big believer in learning by doing. If no one's interested in training a total newbie up from scratch, I understand, but I thought I'd offer. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you feel more comfortable doing admin patrolling to get some experience in the area before becoming a clerk? That might help you ease into it from a clerking point of view. Just a thought. But yes, we do need more admin clerks, so I'll be more than happy to "train" you too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel perfectly comfortable entering training directly, although I'll patrol as well if you think it would help. What's the first step in training, and what sort of patrolling did you have in mind, exactly?--Aervanath (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, well I've added you to the list. Training is more a "ask when you need help" setup: essentially clerking is admin patrolling, taking care of WP:DUCK cases like you would normally, with the added ability to accept and decline requests for checkuser.

Some clerk coordination is done on IRC at #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect, just for ease as the bot is currently down, but its usage is not compulsory. SPUClerkBot used to exist there as well, and report new cases, requests for closes, and handle remote delists. Unfortunately it's down and it's all happening manually, but hopefully it should be back up again when Nixeagle returns. The currentclerk instructions relating to the bot's handling of cases are void until the bot comes back up, of course. Take it slowly, and when investigating requests for checkuser, bear in mind thecriteria. Use common sense when judging the outcome of a case, but you have plenty so it shouldn't be an issue. Feel free to ping me on my talk page with any queries, or if I'm not around, ping another active clerk or ask on IRC. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while all current cases are listed, Category:Open SPI cases might also be useful. New cases waiting to be listed by a clerk are at WT:SPI#New cases. Patrolling just means reviewing the cases, deciding what action to take, in the same way you would normally as a patrolling admin. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Open SPI cases needs to be checked on a daily basis, its the most important function right now because we need to make sure all cases are listed. There you will find all cases not mentioned on WT:SPI to be listed, because they don't know to check. The easiest way to check this, is to count the open cases listed (open, awaiting clerk, awaiting cu, and pending close for total) and check the number against the category's number. If the cat has extra, this means you need to list those cases. Also remember that you need to preserve the chronological order of these cases by the date header. Switching the cases around to different headers is relatively straight forward. Archiving is also easy. Just create the archive in the same format all of our archives are in with the entire contents of the page, and remove everything from the main case page starting at the forced break mark. If the archive is already there, just copy everything starting from the date header and make sure you add it into the archive preserving the order in dates. If you need a reference, either check how the bot would archive, or my last 500 contribs. Adding the "archive" section to the spiclose section is, at present, redundant. The only reason its being used right now, is to tell me another clerk reviewed it and I don't have to. But if you're going to archive a case, you don't need to edit the template as it was a bot feature. Also, there are non clerks editing the pages. This should be fine so long as its helping. If its not helping, ask them to stop editing the pages until they fully understand how to clerk it. I'm not going to get mad because there are willing editors, adding cases to pending and moving the occasional case. However, it makes extra work for us when they get it wrong. Please just be on the lookout. I'll write more if its needed or if there are any questions. Syn 01:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nichalp is not listed, on purpose. So when counting, do a minus one.Syn 01:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We may need to move the open section back to its subpage. This is why the chronology is being messed up. We're used to seeing the date headers when adding cases, and since its been on the main spi page, the extra headers make the page look longer, ugly and aren't shown. Also, if you have questions, please ask. I'd rather everyone know, than only a few. Syn 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As an aggregate, the open cases section will be roughly chronological - if its off by a few hours it shouldn't be a big deal. I don't think making the chronology perfect is enough reason to switch back to the subpages (and it wasn't perfect when it was done that way anyway). Nathan ^T 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

After adding in 9 cases, I found that it wasn't "roughly" chronological. It was way off. This is how we know our oldest cases from our newest. There was good reason to make and maintain the chronology, and I'm not going to get lazy now and just toss any case, in any order. Syn 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I'd put my hand up to give a hand. You seem to have quite a few non-admin clerks at this time, but it seems there's a reasonably high turnover ratio, and I figure one extra wouldn't hurt. I do have a general idea of how the process works, and have reasonable judgment when it comes to sniffing for socks, so, I thought I'd just offer my services. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your history, you will most likely not become a full clerk here. With that said, its my decision to not take you as a trainee. I'd rather train someone who would have a chance to make full clerk, and wouldn't need to be watched. Sincere regards.Syn 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, Synergy. Steve's had an excellent record since he was unbanned in march. He was banned in August, 11 months ago. Since he;s been unbanned, he's shown excessive clue around the wiki, especially at moderation. In my opinion, Steve's got more clue than many other editors. He just had a slip of clue during the incident with PeterSymonds (who is incidentally a clerk as well) and Coffee last year. I would take him on, but I don't have the time at the moment. Just putting it out there. (X! · talk)  · @872  ·  19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Synergy here. While I do feel that Steve has improved since he was unbanned, I am of the mind that the CheckUsers would not promote him to a full clerk at this time. Making taking him on as a trainee, rather pointless. Tiptoety ^talk 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Synergy, but I do think that others might feel differently, and I'd invite other clerks for their opinion, too. It's not really a big deal, but I'd like to help out if I could. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your situation. The issue here is training clerks to become full clerks, because this is the purpose of the training. Frankly, unless the CU's tell us over a course of x amount of days that you'd be fine (or something similar), training you is not only pointless, it would be a waste of time and effort of the trainer. And you can take that as fact (until otherwise), and not my opinion. Best.Syn 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I understand that any clerk has the prerogative to train only whomever they agree to. This is important, and if there were no one willing to train someone because all clerks felt that they would fail at the task or were sufficiently controversial, then their application would be justifiably denied. But we should be expressing actual personal opinions, not predictions of what CheckUsers would say. For my part, I would willingly work with anyone as a clerk who was accepted for training by the existing clerks and who completed that training without incident. I don't feel I know Steve well enough to endorse him (or veto him), but he should be judged on his merits by those who do. I trust the opinions of all the current clerks. Dominic·t10:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't speak on behalf of CUs, but personally, I want to invest my time to train a clerk who has the potential to become a full clerk. If I have a choice, I usually don't take someone with a bad track record, whether the ban happened yesterday or a year ago.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since both Coffee and PeterSymonds have been resysopped, I don't think its impossible that Steve could become a clerk (even, someday, an admin). But Dominic's point still holds - in order to become a trainee, a clerk needs to agree to train him. Given Tiptoety's comment above, that seems unlikely. Nathan ^T 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone, but I feel that I need to work on this a bit more before I ask again. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

After taking a rather extended wikibreak, I would like to volunteer myself to become a trainee clerk. I clerked for a few months back atcheckuser requests and then left Wikipedia for a while. Now that I've returned, I'd like to help out once again, so if one of the clerks would "adopt" me, that would be great. Thanks for your consideration. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I used to be a clerk back in the day ([2]) and served there for quite some time, and was wondering if someone could put their hand up to 'coach' me. As I used to be at the post, I'm fairly confident and won't need a lot of 'coaching' per se, but I wouldn't mind getting back into it, you know? :) —Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 14:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In case any of the new clerks noticed (namely Enigmaman and Aervenath), the bot was not recognising you as clerks until today. Thus you couldn't archive cases or do some of the other basic clerk functions. This has been fixed. Sorry for the inconvenience. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. I haven't been marking them as archived anyway, since I felt that as a new trainee, I should be letting more experienced clerks review my work first. Nice to feel trusted so quickly. Thanks!--Aervanath (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With MuZemike's recent decision to take on Steven Zhang as a clerk, as well as the fact that two different users have been bugging me on IRC to make them trainee clerks, I figured I might as well post this here. Although I understand that the trainee position was meant to be a simple thing where any full clerk could take a trainee on without discussion with the other clerks, I figured it might be better if potential trainee names are dropped here for a day or two for clerks to object to; if there is a disagreement about making someone a trainee, it should be discussed further, though the original clerk to post a potential name would make the final call. Although this would make the process a bit more bureaucratic, it avoids the situation where a user that one clerk has already declined to train simply moves on to another clerk who isn't as aware of any background regarding that user. Does that acceptable to everyone? NW (Talk) 02:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call, avoids forum shopping. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Its fine with me. Perhaps requests to become a trainee should be directed here first (as happened with Groovedog below).Nathan ^T 02:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked if any clerks were willing to take me on as a trainee clerk on IRC, Peter suggested that I post on the noticeboard in case anyone has some major problem with my potential clerkship. Anyways, I'd like to volunteer myself. I clerked at WP:RFCU before it was integrated to SPI, so I'm generally familiar with the process. I'd say I'm trusted enough, but if anyone's got reason to oppose I can..not clerk. :) Thanks, GrooveDog • i'm groovy.20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceranthor (talk · contribs) has asked if I would be willing to take him on as a SPI clerk. I have no problem with doing so, but I was wondering if any of the clerks had any objections. NW (Talk) 14:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any concerns, I am back to clerking.Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome NW(Talk)03:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this, I want to report that User:The C of Eapproached me and stating that he would like to be a clerk. I kindly declined because he failed to disengage from edit war and was blocked for harassing editors made me feel uncomfortable in accepting him as trainee. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse for all kinds of reasons. I'd veto any attempt by this editor to become a clerk. Brandon (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in becoming a SPI non-admin clerk and I have been watching the CUs and clerks on IRC do their jobs. I have filed two SPI cases (which were closed and archived). I have some small experience in using the CheckUser extension; not even close to how it's used at English.--Bsadowski1 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No serious objections to Bsadowski (who hangs out in the IRC channel as Brian_S). Will note that non-admin clerks generally have a bit more experience, and that it doesn't seem like there are often backlogs that could be addressed by non-admins. Nathan ^T 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone else objects here (or anywhere else to me or the other clerks or CUs in that matter), then I'd be willing to bring him aboard as an SPI clerk. –MuZemike 08:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks. We have a need for some new clerks at WP:SPI, the sockpuppet investigations process. At SPI, clerks help the checkusers maintain the page by keeping cases organized, archiving them, tagging confirmed socks, endorsing checkuser requests and occasionally declining them. All final decisions, of course, rest with the checkusers. Both administrators and non-administrators can be trainees and full clerks. For example, Nathan, one of the clerks who has been there the longest, is not an administrator.

A few things to keep in mind if you think you might like to help us keep the sock menace down: (a) we generally don't take trainees with a recent block log or history of disruptive editing, (b) we would prefer trainees who can be regularly active and (c) we often use the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi on Freenode, which can be accessed using one of these tools or links, for coordination purposes. Please e-mail myself, Nathan, MuZemike or PeterSymonds if you're interested.

On behalf of the SPI clerk team, NW (Talk) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to NW's request above, I'd like to offer my time. I'd be happy to help out in any way possible.  7  04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in helping out as a clerk if possible. Pinkadelica^♣ 10:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ready and willing to assist a bit. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

↑ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that you guys probably prefer someone with +sysop, but figured that I'd throw my name in here too. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I like the idea of a sock clerking SPI :)

We're good with both, and its handy to have a mix. I've been a clerk awhile, and I'm not a sysop. Nathan ^T 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. My point is that you guys might think there's enough non-sysop clerks already :) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's only one! Well, with two in training, but they aren't super active at the moment and are at the earliest stages of training. Nathan ^T 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks for responding to our post. We've had a good response so far I think, if you don't mind a short delay we'll probably go over things this evening (EST) on IRC and get back to you all after that. Do you folks use IRC at all, or mind trying it out just for the SPI channel? (I know the answer to that for Julian). Nathan ^T 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my post above does not mean that others should be discouraged from throwing their hat in as well. If more folks are interested, please feel free to post here and let us know. Nathan ^T 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Negative on the IRC for me for most of the day unfortunately... strict corporate firewall regs at the office. But I check my watchlist multiple times per hour (minute).  7  22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Gmail by any chance? Nathan ^T 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly no... I mean I have a gmail acct - but any webmail, social network, proxy servers, anonymizers, or just about anything fun is blocked at work.  7  22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On now (from home).  7  12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested too, I did already E-mail NW, but I thought it'd be worth posting here too. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting here to show my interest as well... Auntie E. (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks, thanks for your interest. Individual clerks select their own trainees, and if you haven't heard from one, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Aunt Entropy, do you have access during the day to IRC? Thanks again everyone. Nathan ^T 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I can. I've hooked up through http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikimedia-toolserver. Will that work? Auntie E. (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Spitfire was kind enough to show me the IRC room. I'm simply "Aunt" there (forgot the underscore). Ready and willing to get started if anyone wishes to take me on. Thanks, Auntie E. (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy is now a clerk. Apologies for the unusual delay in processing these; the problem was finding a clerk who actually wanted to train anyone. So far, we have two who are interested in training you, so I've added you to the clerk list and you can begin clerking immediately. Either Spitfire or Tim Song will train (although both are willing to lend a hand). Feel free to poke me or the IRC chat for any assistance, and thank you for helping. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on my userpages, I'm taking a slight wikibreak from the stuff that I've been doing (which involved heavy doses of SPI clerking). However, I'd be able to start training Aunt Entropy if need be. However again, seeing that two of our clerks are now "full clerks" (with another one likely in the near future), I'd be happy to give them a chance to train Aunt E. if they wish. Any thoughts? –MuZemike 09:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in being a clerk or clerk trainee. I've been pretty active with SPI for some time now, filing about 1 or 2 a week, and reporting socks to CUs like Nishkid64 and YellowMonkey. So I was wondering if I could help out too. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections. Does anyone else? Elockid, question for you. Do you happen to use IRC, Gmail, or Skype? If you could use any of them, but especially the first, that would make training you much easier. NW (Talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I use Gmail. I haven't used IRC yet, but I wouldn't mind learning how to use it. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you use Firefox, ChatZilla is a quick and easy download that will allow you to access IRC. Otherwise http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-spi should work for you. NW (Talk) 16:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded Chatzilla. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Just pop on over to #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect, and I'll teach you the basics. NW (Talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested in becoming a Clerk. May I have assistance in becoming one? Cutno (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm fairly sure that most, if not all of the clerks would like to see more experience than what you currently have. Tim Song (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How much experience are you suggesting that I need, and is everyone else of same opinion? I would really like more responsibilities then I currently have now. Cutno (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might suggest reading up on anti-vandalism procedures and trying out recent changes patrol. Have you explored Twinkle or rollback? That's a good way to get started in the project-side of things if you want. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I requested to be a trainee above. Since then, another clerk was approved. Was I denied? Auntie E. (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I am running Linux on a relatively okay machine. But the thing is, with programs for windows such wp:Huggle, I can't do any vandal busting if the problem is already fixed. Linux programs are slow and there is much lag with IRC (which most of the programs rely on). Is there anything else I could do? Are you sure you won't give me a try? Cutno (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I described requires anything except your browser and the ability to click the "Save page" button, so check 'em out. I am not a full time clerk so I can't say aye or nay, but I can say that someone who is barely eligible for rollback could probably use some more experience here and there before diving into SPI. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Aunt Entropy: See PeterSymonds' post above. Apologies about the delay. I concur with Amory w/r/t experience. Tim Song (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently went to PeterSymonds directly asking him to be my trainer, but he deferred me for a week until he got his internet back. Two weeks later, I'm coming here to ask if anyone would be willing to train me. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone would be willing to take me as a clerk. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on Kevin? NW (Talk) 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A week later and no responses. This is either good or bad. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Tim Song (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So far there are no objections, so is there any way we can close this two month dilemma? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...let's mourn at the lack of clerks willing to pass on their wisdom...I'll take you. Tim Song (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where can I jump in and do some good here?--Adam in MO Talk 09:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see a bit more experience before taking you on as a trainee, though another clerk may of course disagree. Tim Song (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're definitely on the right track, but with little bit over 1300 edits that's on the short end of the stick. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Along with the upcoming elections for checkusers, I was wondering if there was still a need for additional clerks. I'd like to offer myself as a candidate, should anyone be willing to take me under the wing. I have experience dealing with socks in the past, as it's been a common focus of many of the edit filters that I've crafted. During that time I've also ended up making the sockpuppet manager twinkle plugin to simplify certain cases that pass the duck test. Having worked with a few clerks and checkusers already I think that I have a good feel for the process and am totally willing to help out in any way possible. Are there any clerks out there willing to take me as a trainee? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of checkusers really doesn't affect the number of clerks we need, but new clerks are probably needed regardless. I would be happy to take you on if there are no other objections. NW (Talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no objections from me. Tim Song (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Added as a clerk. NW (Talk) 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Are more clerks currently needed? I have conflicts of interest with respect to at least one of the frequent requests, but I'd be happy to help and know my way around at this point, I think. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I found that you have been blocked quite recently for disruptive editing. Even though you're unblocked, you admitted yourself that you acted aggressively. These are not the core values that we're looking for. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if I could be a trainee clerk. I'm willing to learn the handles of being a clerk. BejinhanTalk 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a bit more experience, especially some more experience in the project areas and in SPI in particular. Sorry. Tim Song (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try again later. BejinhanTalk 10:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Tim Song's request, I've become active in various projects and have read up WP:SOCK, WP:SOSP, and various related pages. BejinhanTalk 07:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been considering bringing back in User:Bsadowski1 for another chance. There's been a few changes since we dropped him several months ago:

• He's now a CheckUser on the Simple English Wikipedia and frequently helps out on cross-wiki coordination.
• Since the advent of User:Tim Song/spihelper.js, it may be easier for him to do the more menial tasks that I think were giving him problems earlier.

Thoughts? –MuZemike 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Tim Song (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections here, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

...I'd be willing to help out the the clerk work. Let me know if I can be of use. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely support more admins getting involved in this process. PeterSymonds (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. Do you have access to IRC during the day? You should be able to use the freenode web gateway to connect. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can get an IRC client up and running on my two home computers tomorrow. I'll be available intermittently during the day for the next six weeks or so, but I'm generally most active between 0300-0700 UTC (10 p.m. - 2 a.m. CDT). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So long as no objections come up it's now just be a matter of waiting for a clerk to agree to train you. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just have the lucky ticket holder drop me a line. Cheers, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a lucky ticket holder? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have any objections, it seems that you're going to be working with me. Ping me when you are on IRC and we'll get it started. Thanks for volunteering! Tim Song (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Supreme_Deliciousness since 14:51, 15 April 2010. If Spitfire is actually evaluating it, he'll want to change the template to On Hold. Hipocrite (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've previously closed exactly the same case, so I probably won't be declining it, to allow for a second third fourth opinion. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

<-- From Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

Hello, I was wondering if I could become a trainnee cleck for SPI. I am currently involved in WP:ABUSE, WP:ACC, WP:AFC (those are my primary areas). -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You certainly look like a suitable candidate. Endorse. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Would be possible if I re-joined the clerking team to help you guys out? Unfortunately for me life got really busy months ago, but now I'm able to start back up if you're in need of help! Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 17:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Feel free to readd yourself. NW (Talk) 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I don't know if you're looking for more trainees at the moment, but if you are I would be very happy to help out. I've been active in account creation and vandalism fighting, and I am very frequently available on IRC. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Stopping by #wikipedia-en-spi would your best bet I think. Brandon (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be on there later today so we can talk. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Room for one more trainee? For the moment I don't have access to IRC,but I should get access within the next week or two. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we are really mostly looking for admins at the moment, but any clerk is free to take you on if they wish to. NW (Talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was told to come here by Amory because I had been told to ask someone else many times now. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 09:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We're doing okay for non-admin clerks at the moment. The backlog lies in admin processing (blocks and closing), so at the moment, we could really do with more admin clerks. If a need arises, we'll let you know. Thanks for your interest. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that sorry for the late response. ~~

If and when there is a need for an additional trainee clerk, I'd like to volunteer. I dropped a note earlier today at MuZemike and followed up by reading the pages he recommended. I'd read most of them before but somehow never managed to read Signs of sock puppetry. I must admit that there were some things in there I'd never thought would be done or needed to be looked for. Anyway, if any full clerk would be willing to take me on as a trainee, this is an area I'd like to help out in. Seems there is always a backlog around here. I've not used IRC for years, but have downloaded a client and signed on at #wikipedia-en-spi just to make sure I still remember how. Seems to work just fine, and the Mac client I chose (Colloquy) seems a lot nicer than any of the IRC clients I recall using in the past... Yworo (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am only really looking for admins at the moment to train, but any other clerk is free to take you on if they wish to. NW (Talk) 13:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to volunteer my time as a clerk to help out at SPI. I understand Wikipedia:CheckUser and have read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, and have used WP:SPI several times. I've been an admin for a couple of years and on Wiki for four, and hopefully (hopefully) I have an okay standing! I've read the privacy policy for Wikipedia, and in my day time jobs I'm extremely familiar with the most strict privacy policies enforced. Hope I can help, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. Do you happen to use IRC by any chance? NW (Talk) 13:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not for a time, however I have no problem resuming. But I've just applied for CU so will wait to hear that that has been declined first ;) --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck with that then. If you don't happen to get it, I'll be happy to take you on as a clerk. NW (Talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi NW. I didn't get through the CU so I would like to offer my services as a clerk. I am away for a whole month though, starting in about a week or so, so it might be worth holding off until I get back. But just to let you know I am here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. It might be easiest to start up when you get back. Can you send me a ping then? Thanks, NW (Talk) 12:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the world's loudest ping. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Was on IRC, asking about maybe being a clerk. Told me to post here, so I did. In any case, I'm interested in becoming an SPI clerk. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections, support, etc. Brandon (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What Brandon said. NW (Talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's all right with other clerks, I'll be willing to take NativeForeigner as a trainee, even if I've only been active here for less than a week. :) (X! · talk)  · @694  ·  15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. The rest of us are around all the time anyway. NW (Talk) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in becoming a trainee clerk, and am looking for a user to train me. Is there anyone willing to take on a trainee right now? Thanks, A8x (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. At the present time, our backlog is really in the administrative processing (blocks etc) of the cases. As such, we are especially on the look out for administrators. However, if the need arises, we'll be sure to inform you. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, my name is Dwayne, i'm interested in becoming a clerk trainee for SPI. I've asked different people at #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect, but someone either says that they are not accepting anyone or they only are taking admins (frankly, i disagree with that). So i'm just leaving a note here to all clerks to see if anyone is interested in accepting me. Thanks in advance, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that you won't be accepted due to the issues you've had in the past. Just my thoughts. You aren't exactly in good standing with the community, if you recall what I'm talking about. —fetch·comms 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you just look at the threads just above this one, you'd see that they are indeed looking for admins. —fetch·comms 02:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fetchcomms, CU cleared his name. It's stated on the block log. But I won't disagree with you on the point of looking for more admins as clerks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that was what Fetchcomms was referring to. --Deskana (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, but I won't pursue it further. Ask around if you still want to know. —fetch·comms 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Dwayne. As others have mentioned, we're currently only really seeking admin clerks, since that's the backlog with which we require assistance. There are also still issues which you have not yet left behind. I'm not keen on going into the details, but it's sufficient to say that you are not in particularly good standing with the community, and there are also clerks and checkusers with who it may be difficult to work alongside. If the situation develops I'll try and get back to you, but until further notice I'm sorry to say that you becoming a clerk is not agreeable. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fetchcomms, can you post it here so everyone's on the same page? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my time, if there are still openings (for non-admins, which I imagine there are 1 or 2... :P)! --ANowlin: talk 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for volunteering. At the moment, like we are saying to all other non-admin applicants, we only have a backlog of cases needing admin processing (blocks, etc). We'll let you know if there's an opening in the future. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Following the advice of NativeForeigner, I'm posting here with a request to help out with SPI. I'll do anything I can to lend a hand. So what's the best way to proceed from here? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would be delighted to have you as a clerk. You would need a full clerk to agree mentor you; perhaps you could try asking Shirik or X! if they would be willing? NW (Talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted on X's talk page, but per a note on there, it seems he's going to be more or less away for awhile. And Shirik seems to be less than active as well. Can I help out anyway dealing with more low level/obvious things (e.g. checkuser confirmed socks) or is that restricted only to clerks that have been trained? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You may certainly help out in an administrator role, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions for more information. Really, the only special ability that clerks have is endorsing or declining cases for CheckUser attention. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there HelloAnnyong. I'm more than happy to take you on as a trainee clerk, and as such I have added you to the clerk list as a trainee. I'm always open to any questions you may have (as are the other clerks). Most of the coordination is done on the SPI IRC channel, which you can connect to here, the IRC channel is the best place to ask questions, however, feel free to use my talk page or e-mail me as well. Best of luck! (PS: if you want some reading material, then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures and Wikipedia:CheckUser are good to look over, and if you enable e-mail then I can send you a message that should help to get you started (please let me know if you do enable e-mail)). Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are non-admin clerks needed at this point or is the admin backlog still a problem? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:28pm • 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The admin backlog is still the main problem at this point. NW (Talk) 14:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:23pm • 08:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope I'm posting this in the right place. Anyway, following this discussion at ANI, where it was agreed that these two were the same person, could a clerk merge these two cases. Cheers, Dpmuk (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that ((checkuser)) does not show the "SPI block" button when you expand a case while on the main page. You have to proceed into the case page before that specific button shows up. Anyone knows why? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it knows what SPI case to use in the block summary from the ((PAGENAME)) family of magic words. When on the main page, those magic words return values corresponding to WP:Sockpuppet investigations without the case name, so it has no way of knowing what SPI case it is about. Taken another way, if we had included such a button, on the main page it would have generated the same block summary for every SPI case. T. Canens (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've read the above requests and found that in the past, non-admins were declined as there is only a backlog on tasks which require sysop tools. I have no idea if this is still the case, so I'll be bold and request this anyways.

I have been interested in sockpuppet investigations for quite a while, and have handled many myself on various Wikia wikis. I would love to be able to help out in this area on Wikipedia as well, and as I mentioned above I already have some of the background knowledge required, and am more than willing to learn the Wikipedia-specific aspects to it. Thanks for your consideration. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is still the case. Plus your account is created pretty recently. I would suggest you to gain more experience before tackling harder stuff (i.e. this) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. As I said, I have done this type of thing many times before, just never on Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume clerks would be able to answer this question. Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#Wrong name. It's become more urgent. WP:ANI#Legal threats at User talk:Skovalinsky. Could someone comment on how to proceed with changing an SPI name?   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

May I be a clerk trainee? I started with wikipedia a bit over 1 year and I did lots of edits. I also take lots of time at the Investigations of sock-puppetery. Here's my links.

Ebe123 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• You've got less than 2000 edits, and only one edit on SPI (this). Sorry, but I don't think that's enough experience to start as a clerk. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am applying for a trainee clerk position. I would like to be trusted with more responsibility. I understand WP:SOCK policy and promise to be conservative. For your consideration, Phearson (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Phearson (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

I'll be honest - I think (though others may disagree) the biggest need at the moment is for administrator clerks who can assist with making decisions on cases and possibly blocking users. Your offer to help is certainly appreciated, though! TNXMan 13:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your need for administrative users, but I have also noticed that lots of cases go by without clerk review for periods of time, the only other clerk I see is HelloAnnyong, and it looks like he is doing all the work. Phearson (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now now, that's not true. Plenty of the other clerks do a lot of work. But really though, if you want to help out with SPI, saying that everyone else isn't pulling their weight isn't the best way to get involved. TNX is generally correct that we need admin help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my remarks seemed rude. I didn't mean that other clerks etc, etc. But I will come back if I ever make it to be an Admin. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it. Phearson (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As a present member of Abuse Response and active Wikipedian for the last 9 months, I've gained much experience and knowledge over my time here at Wikipedia. I am eager learning and am keen on participating where I can and lending a hand when possible, I have a sound knowledge of WP:SOCK and related policies and guidelines. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:46pm • 10:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Apparition (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Right now we're looking for admin clerks who can do blocks. See the topic heading just above your's for details. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:28pm • 03:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've also been thinking about this. A ton of the clerks and CUs are people I've had lots of contact with and gotten along well with, and to be completely honest, I'm much better at this type of work (clerking/backlog clearing/drone stuff) than I am at content creation. I know that you all are not looking for non-admins, but if the need arises, I am ready, willing, and able to do what is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Your account is pretty recent (began editing since September 2010) and we're looking for admin clerks who have vast experience across the field. Perhaps you'll try again next time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I thought it was heading this way. I won't be running for RfA for another seven months or so, so maybe if I pass I'll come on back and see if I'm needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a long time admin and would like to become a trainee clerk. I have recently done some sockpuppetry work (like AbuseFilter stuff) and would like to get more involved. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Hearts (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

I've glanced through your contributions, talk page, admin review, etc. and everything seems fine to me. TNXMan 11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So who is willing to become my trainer? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'm jealous. If you get to pick trainers, I'd suggest Bsadowski1 (an admin). I can vouch for him possessing solid credentials in both "competence" and "communication skills." The other admins I'd recommend are unavailable. X! and Tim C have trainees and NW is inactive. I can also vouch for KTR101 on the whole competence and communication thing, but he's not an admin, so there might be things he can't show you, (honestly I wouldn't know). As for the others, I've met any in passing, and all seem nice, but I can't vouch for them. Hope this helps. If you need me, I'll be stewing in envy somewhere over there. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey King of Hearts, I'm not an admin, but as a clerk, I would be willing to take you on as a trainee. Just let me know if you would like me to train you. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will get something up today or tomorrow and let you know on your User TP. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a question, with the DQ an admin and King of Hearts a new clerk, can non-admins join the project? I'm just curious, also would Abuse Response sharing cases with SPI be feasible? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:36pm • 10:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

At this time our policy on accepting non-admins has not changed; the main backlogs that are of concern remain admin-related. As for abuse response sharing cases with SPI, this seems unlikely: WP:ABUSE is for reporting IP addresses to ISPs; they do not handle community-side aspects of cases. SPI is a strictly community process for dealing with sockpuppetery. In the past, we have referred users who report SPI cases onward to abuse response (and I'm 100% sure that the abuse reporters have done the same), but sharing cases does not seem feasible since we both operate with very different objectives and processes in mind; the current system of occasional referral of appropriate cases seems ideal. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah right then, thanks. I thought that getting a CheckUser to run a search on an IP to see if there are socks then that way we'd cover more ground in mitigating vandalism and account-related abuse. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:18pm • 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How about making reading the CheckUser policy mandatory. It would be good for clerks for knowing more how to respond to difficult cases. Sorry if it is already. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be literally shocked if any of the current active clerks hadn't read the privacy policy, the WMF CU policy, the English wikipedia's CU procedural policy and the sockpuppetry policy all at least once. During training as a clerk reading most of these is considered standard, and, as far as I've seen, is always advised by the trainer. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've been moderately interested in SPI and I understand you have a sort of backlog; not sure if that is still true. I also noticed you are looking for more admins to help with that backlog. I have a bit of background in networking and I can spot fairly obvious ducks. I dont mind helping out with the backlog and doing a bit of clerking if you still need more support.--v/r - TP 16:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

TParis (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hi. My name is Addihockey10, I've been around for a little while (2.5 years?). I'm interested in becoming a non-admin trainee clerk to help with SPIs. I'm planning on going up for an RfA soon; so if I pass RfA I could be able to be an admin clerk. I have some off-WMF wiki CU experience where I had to deal with trolls and spamvertisers; other then that I'm fairly new to the SPI process. If you have any questions feel free to let me know either here or on my talk page :-) . --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We've currently got twelve admin clerks and two non-admin ones. We've also got a bunch of non-clerk checkusers who are active here. Personally I think we've got enough representation for the near future, but I was wondering what the other clerks think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a non-clerk checkuser. Aside from that, I am inclined to agree. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha, this is true. I was looking at the clerk list and sort of zoned out a bit. Anyway, I've struck my comment as such. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the SPI team's position in the past months when it comes to non-admin clerks, but with the new move of Steven Zhang to inactive, I thought I'd submit my help, just in case. I'm an active Wikipedian, and over the past few weeks I've been helping out and familiarizing myself with the SPI process, so I know most of the terminology. I have experience with edit filter management (although not here) and bots, and I've been a CheckUser off-wiki. Most notably, I hold CheckUser rights on several wikis of the TechEssentials network. I also frequent some high-profile IRC channels like #wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect. I'd like to assist the SPI team with clerking, such as endorsing CheckUser and administering requests. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Redacted) While I am still pretty uncomfortable with this, I'm pulling my explicit opposition. HelloAnnyong has enough information to decide whether or not my concern warrants bringing up in a clerk chat, should KuduIO's application be brought to that level. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am indeed in possession of said information. I've taken Sven's information under consideration, but aside from that, my bigger concern with Kudu is a lack of experience. They've currently got less than 3500 edits on Wikipedia, and I'd like to see more experience here before considering them as a clerk. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you HelloAnnyong for your consideration. As for Sven's redaction, as I said in private to DeltaQuad, this isn't so/as much a formal application for the clerk status, which involves endorsing/declining CU requests and archiving threads, as it is a wish to get some one-on-one training on how to handle the SPI process. I'll gain some more experience and then leave a note here again in a little while. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I just thought some clerks might be interested in knowing about the 2011 CheckUser/Oversight appointments. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I just built a little tool on the toolserver to help with clerking. Basically you feed it a sockmaster's username, and it'll give you back the last edit times of all their socks, both confirmed and suspected. Handy for checking if a checkuser is viable. I've also written a contribution range checker to replace X!'s.

If you happen to find any issues with these, please let me know. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty neat. I would say that the first tool should be a link on every SPI case, sort of like the user comparison tool is. TNXMan 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The evidence page has been emptied of its contents but offers no clue of the existence of an archive page about this case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you purge the cache next time, that archive link should appear. –MuZemike 23:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I used to be a clerk wayyyyyy back in the day when it was just voluntary work and I'm sort of interested in getting back into things here. If you have enough I understand. Alexandria (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Will a clerk please take Alexandria on as a trainee? She has the bit, and I think would be a useful addition. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done so. Cheers, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a status along the lines of "clerkrequest" where clerk assistance is needed to allow it to be flagged in a manner similar to allow easy indication of assistance needed? Just a thought. Alexandria (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently ((Clerk Request)) is used for this, which lists the page in the category Category:SPI Cases needing a clerk. This is useful as it means the process of the case is not interrupted by the clerk request. It would be a great idea to get these requests mentioned on User:Δ/Sandbox, though, which I guess is more what you were getting at anyway. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This new tool can quickly and easily provide checkuser results in a highly readable 8-ball format. Moreover, thanks to the state-of-the-art mind reading technology employed, you do not even have to tell it the users you want to check - it will automatically read this from your mind. No more waiting for that absentee checkuser! The current version is only in alpha, so the response may be occasionally wrong. If that happens, feel free to repeat the process, and you should eventually get the correct answer. The final version should be up in approximately -4314 days. Stay tuned! T. Canens (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha...what a classic :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, this is new? This is how I have been running checks since day one. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It may not be new to checkusers, but it is new to us poor clerks. T. Canens (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so you guys know were talking about templates here. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for something new to get my teeth into, and I've done quite a bit of patrolling of SPI as an admin, so I thought I'd see if the folks here thought they could find a use for another clerk and if so, if any current clerk was willing to take me under their wing. I perfectly understand if it's thought we have enough clerks, but I would quite like to help with the particularly monotonous stuff like archiving closed cases (a task that isn't always done quickly because it's not as urgent, but it can make the backlog appear bloated and deter people who might otherwise help out), and start processing CU requests as I get a feel for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy for you to join in. I'm not sure what the best method is for training, really, but I think jumping in couldn't hurt. Archiving cases is pretty easy to start with and doesn't take much effort. As for patrolling cases, I think a good start there would be reviewing some closed cases to see why checkuser involvement was endorsed or declined, as well as what the follow up admin actions were. In addition, review some open cases -what action would you take? If you want to draft some responses for the open cases ("I'd endorse/decline checkuser here because..." or "I'd block this account because...") and post them on my talk, I'd be happy to review and offer whatever assistance I can. I'm talking off the top of my head somewhat, but let me know what you think. TNXMan 16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Tnxman here (although I can actually take a trainee and he can't :P). T. Canens (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you come on to IRC, I'm sure you'll quickly learn the procedures and all the good stuff. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that IRC is the best way to ensure your training, that way everyone can help, and really, we can try all this training, but I feel the documentation (now watch this shoot me in the back) was up to date last time I checked. I personally learned by hands on experience, watching cases, and talking with others. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I should come onto IRC more often, so this is a good excuse to poke my head round the door. I've just got a new computer, so I'll set IRC etc up over the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – clerked

I've actually been a SPI clerk trainee since July 2010, and since X! retired I figured it would make sense to make me a full clerk. I may not have been here that consistently, but I have reasonably extensive and comprehensive experience. Now that X! has retired, I was just wondering if we could just call training complete, and make me a full fledged clerk? NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• You have my blessing. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. Seeing as you just lost two clerks (in X! and NW), and will likely lose a third soon (DQ would have to resign if he's selected for Audit Subcommittee), I figured I'd stop on by again and offer to be a clerk. I know I'm not an admin (yet), and that you're looking for admins, but I do bring one benefit not many can offer; I'm on Wikipedia every day, often times multiple times a day, which has obvious benefits from a process efficiency standpoint.

Regards,
Sven Manguard Wha? 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. Maybe hit up User:NativeForeigner on their talk page seeing as they just gained full clerkship. They might be willing to take you on as a trainee. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections with Sven and have frequent contact with him as of late, and would be willing to take him up as a trainee if there are no further objections. (Note: I have removed KoH without prejudice of coming back just because of inactivity) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If no one else objects, I am willing to accept DeltaQuad's offer. It'll be a test of the viability of mumble training sessions. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Sven would be a good addition to the SPI team. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Now what is this audit subcommittee? I haven't been terribly... engaged as of late. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me too. @NF: WP:AUSC. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Approved. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so Δbot (which does a fair bit at SPI) is now indef blocked. Is the new bot ready to roll? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea (bot) (talk · contribs). Tiptoety ^talk 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I normally use User:Δ/Sandbox to check open cases, is there an alternative? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be watching Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview‎ from now on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that works. I'll update my sidebar of links. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens asked to have the bot clerking extended to automatically "archive" (read: remove) handled quick CheckUser requests after 48 hours. If you have comments, please visit the BRFA.
Thanks, Amalthea 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

I was here when SPI was first created but I never quite managed to complete my training, therefore would anyone be willing to take me on as an admin trainee clerk? I'm willing to learn and I'm quite often online in most Wikipedia IRC channels, including #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect.

Thanks, The Helpful One 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take you on. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, I'll be in touch. The Helpful One 01:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That is presuming that there are no objections, I'll see what this page says tomorrow... ;) The Helpful One 01:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

He's The Helpful One for a reason :) Has my full endorsement. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

THO, you are always welcome around SPI. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No objections. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's no disagreement here, so  Done Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mind you I already said I had no objection, but shouldn't we let this run for 24 hours? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dunno what the standard convention here is, but it appears to be unlikely there'd be any objection to THO being a trainee...perhaps it would be process for the sake of process? Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally as I see it when you have 4+ straight out supports you can usually just close it. Also the status is revertible, so it won't blow up the wiki. True it probably should be left open for closer to 48 to give our CU body time to comment, but I doubt there is going to be much objection to THO. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to make this process more bureaucratic than necessary. Additionally, any clerk can take on a user as a clerk trainee without any discussion. The discussion takes place when making the user a full clerk. Tiptoety ^talk 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

True dat Tiptoety, and that actually makes more sense to do that instead. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your faith in me! :) The Helpful One 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a notice that I have officially restricted User:Darkness Shines on SPI investigations to the following:

In my SPI clerk hat, you are being restricted from:

1. Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item)
2. Filing against Nangparbat
3. From using presenting evidence against established users
4. From filling huge SPIs with multiple editors involved (5 is a general max)

This is an indefinite restriction till you can show otherwise that you will not waste SPI clerk time with baseless cases. Your normal cases (which you have been pretty good with recently) are still allowed and encouraged. Appeal is to the SPI clerk/CU team as a whole, and I will be giving them notice of this restriction.
— User:DeltaQuad 22:55, 23 April 2012

Feel free to contact me with any questions. Please comment on WT:SPI if you wish to comment to keep discussion in one place. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So I've noticed that SPI has been ridiculously backlogged recently, and was wondering if me being a new trainee clerk would be helpful - and if anyone would even be willing to take me on. Thanks for all the good work you guys do! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We could defiantly use some more admin clerks. Anyone up for taking Keilana on as a trainee? Tiptoety ^talk 23:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Second that Tiptoety, with a beg for more admin clerks. :P Sven has gone inactive around, and as I hit a lot of cases here, it would be easy to train and find an example (do ignore my crap in my userspace about training though). So that said, i'm willing to take you on. As always, IRC is the best, but I can do email too. Onwiki is an option...but I tend to miss these easily so one of the others would be better. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Modified: -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not on IRC at the moment, but I could probably get that set up if I can figure out how to use the web client thingy. Otherwise, I can do email as well. Thanks so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mumble may work too, but that's a third choice for me. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about volunteering as well, if someone has the time to do a bit of training. I've got IRC, but haven't logged in much. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DoRD, I've seen you around SPI and think you do good work. If there isn't a clerk available to take you on as a trainee, I'd be happy to do so myself. Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone doesn't take DoRD on, then i'm going to quit. :P I want him on board :) (just kidding about the quitting, but someone seriously better take him :P) Besides DoRD already knows half the shit that goes on here :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I oppose DoRD. Dropping such an awesome username shows that Department of Redundancy Department DoRD has terrible judgement. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha. Very funny ;) I do still have the redirect. Anyway, do you have any idea how tedious it is to type that into the login form on an iPad? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't care. Change it back. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Or don't use the iPad. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was taught that we should let cases sit for 24 hours in between when they are closed and when they are archived. That dosen't seem to be current practice anymore. There are virtues to both systems; waiting a day gives filing and interested parties time catch up, archiving immediately keeps our backlog smaller, and people can always check the archive.

Does anyone have a strong opinion one way or the other? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know enough to have a strong opinion, but it would seem that letting them sit a day is good as it allows CU and other clerks to double check each other, particularly with three trainees in the room. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Six, but who's counting? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Speaking of trainees, where are they? Or am I just that bold as to jump in so readily? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Donno. The percentage of clerks working to clerks on the list has floated around 1/4 most of the time I've been here. Keilana, you, and I are all working (well you and Keilana more than I), so that's good, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Over the several months I've been participating here, I've noticed that one of our most active CUs is also one of the quickest to archive. Since I admire their work, and trust their judgement, I have tended to emulate their archiving patterns. Before I archive anything, I read the case and try to determine whether any further action or comments would be helpful. If not, I archive it right away. Otherwise, I leave it sitting there for at least a day. In other words, I don't think that a hard deadline is necessary or appropriate. Rather, it should be based on judgement and experience. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been doing the same - but there was one time someone (maybe you DoRD or possibly DeltaQuad) was waiting on private information and I didn't know, which was awkward. Just a comment, as I still don't quite know what I'm doing. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that was mine, I had to investigate an IP I had with offwiki records of some sort to see if two socks matched, and it was a clerk hold. Hold != close. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Overall, my rule is as long as you don't have the person who closed it archiving it, I really could care less on the amount of time. 6-24 hours might be nice for any follow ups that are needed, or if there was an error made or something...other than that, there is really nothing official about archive times these days, regardless of whatever clerk pages say. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting review of my CU decline here. As I don't have a Clerk mentor yet, I wanted to make sure my actions are reviewed. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Though I would also comment on the other piece of evidence that the filer gave (adding unreferenced information). To me at least, if you compare it to the other socks, it doesn't look too behaviorally similar as in the typical target pages. IMO this would strengthen the reason for declining the request. Hope that helps. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

← On a semi related note, I think we will be releasing DoRD from his training here shortly. Once this is done, I'll encourage him to take you on as a trainee. Tiptoety ^talk 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I was looking at that one, was leaning towards a decline myself, then the dog trainer came and I didn't want to rush into it. DoRD has been very helpful to me, as have others, so I think he will be helpful. Well, everyone but Tip ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• DoRD or any clerk is fine with me. :) I have been looking over other clerk contribs and trying to pick up what I can. I amended my CU decline as recommended by Elockid. (Thank you)
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Berian Hunter, truthfully one on one mentorship is kinda a myth. It's more that everyone chips in and helps train everyone else in the IRC channel. Really, considering everyone's schedules, that's the best option, too. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• On Tiptoety's semi related note at some point in the next week I'll see if we can promote DoRD, as he seems ready. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, we are hitting severe backlog levels again where the list of open (non-CU) cases is bigger than the size of my screen in the case overview. My proposal is we make a team of people who want to be clerks (probably mostly non-admins) and have them help handle the current backlog, by posting diffs for both CU and non-CU cases so we can actually start cracking down on all these cases. I'm not suggesting that these people be able to endorse or decline CU requests, as they can do that in normal training, but make this almost a step in between nothing and clerkship. We can then as we feel appropriate, make them trainees and eventually full clerks. Thoughts? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is my question: Why? Why not just make them trainees? This process already has enough bureaucracy (coming from the person who created it), I'm not sure adding more is a good thing. It almost sounds like you are just suggesting getting regular editors to help at SPI, which has been the goal all along. No need to create some kind of special category for them. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't help but think that this is way too many layers of bureaucracy. T. Canens (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I reactivated myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your right. So maybe we just need to encourage more non-admins...? Are there any specific criteria we are looking for for non-admins? because most fly by this page, with no action. Is it just someone needs to fire the gun and start the comments? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Trainees would be good. I think perhaps a small recruitment drive should work. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are three new trainees since this discussion, Berean Hunter, Reaper Eternal and myself. Not sure how many trainees the current staff can handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) We just added three and have one more on the list as soon as a trainer opens up. I'm against recruitment in this case because there is a steady stream of people asking already, and that's going to net us more involved and more qualified people than a drive would. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just finished promoting DoRD to full clerk status and am proud to have him on this team. In just one and half months since DoRD started clerk training, he has grasped on to the clerking procedures very well at SPI, and it has been a pleasure working with him so far. He has continued to diminish backlogs, which I am at times lazy to assist in reducing. DoRD has also grasped the concept of case merging (administrative), something that is not always learned by our active clerks. DoRD also has the ability to think outside the box very well when it comes to things that needed to be forwarded outside of SPI. He also provided key feedback when I've requested second opinions. I don't know what else to say except he is definitely above the performance level I would expect a trainee to be at and is a very fast learner. I would also see no issue and would encourage DoRD to pickup a trainee to help expand the ranks. Please help me congratulate him in his promotion. :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• DoRD has been the most helpful to me, actually, so I would say it was certainly due and well earned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Congratulations DoRD! ...and a job well done.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd congratulate him, but based on the congratulations above, it'd be redundant. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

New requests

Use this section if you are interested in training for clerkship, or would like to discuss possible training, and any other questions about possibly training for clerkship. Please add your request to the bottom of this section, with your name in the title. If you are applying for traineeship, please also include the indented user link template     :((Usercheck-full|USERNAME)) Clerks/CUs - This is a list of people who would like to become trainees. Please go in chronological order when choosing your next trainee. If you do not feel the user is ready for clerkship yet, please continue the thread where they asked and inform them on their talkpage. Please remove each as they are reviewed or taken on by a specific user.

Trainee: Someguy1221

Someguy1221 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hey guys. I see you have a bunch of new trainees. If there is ever a need for more, I'd be happy to join. Please let me know if the backlog starts piling up again. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

While we do not really have the staffing levels to accommodate training a new clerk right now, you can still patrol cases as an administrator. There is no rule that says you must be a clerk to review the evidence presented in a case and make a determination. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 05:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added you to the list at the top of the page, please be patient for a review and a clerk trainer. (This does not guarantee approval to be trained) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New trainee: Elektrik Shoos

Elektrik Shoos (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Given the above, I understand if there isn't really a need for new clerks/trainees (and if there is, there's already a line) but I'd like to become a clerk trainee. I'm not an admin, but I have some experience dealing with socks and the SPI process, and would be willing and able to help out with archiving, flagging and the like. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added you to the list at the top of the page, please be patient for a review and a clerk trainer. (This does not guarantee approval to be trained) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New trainee: Basalisk

Basalisk (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hi guys. Similar to the editors above, I'd like to become a clerk trainee. I know in terms of raw edit count I'm pretty inexperienced, but I think I could help out, particularly seeing how clogged SPI can be at times these days. As with Elektrik Shoos I'm not an admin, but would enjoy helping with the rest of the process. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added your name to the list at the top of the page, but note that this does not guarantee approval, and please be patient. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

{Username here}

Please can the clerks stop using the term "duck" and "quacking"? It can be very confusing to users not familiar with SPI cases, and the process is confusing enough without adding unnecessary jargon.

Please keep jargon to a minimum. You'll notice I use next to none, for instance. If you absolutely must use some, at least link to a page that explains what it means.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Deskana. I agree that the process needs to be as transparent as practical, and the overuse of jargon can make it difficult to understand for those unfamiliar with SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I feel the community at large uses it more than us, and this is where i'm finding an issue where they will say the user is a duck, and will sometimes even link it, but they couldn't be 100% farther from the truth that it is not a duck. Personally I only use it when I can prove it, and almost always link it. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I think the bigger problem is with the community at large doing it, and also not providing diffs when they say it. Because then I (and the clerk team as a whole) go fishing for diffs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Duck" to me means that either no diffs are necessary due to the sheer obviousness, or only one diff for each account will make the connection crystal clear. Some people are using it to mean "sockpuppet". For fairness to the clerks, I will start pointing this out to case filers when I see it. However, my request to the clerks still stands. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will also let filers know with there case, and totally agree that clerks could kill some of our jargon too. I may use it out of context (non duck wording) more than I think. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved to WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Creating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawnee Smith

Please can the clerks stop using the term "duck" and "quacking"? It can be very confusing to users not familiar with SPI cases, and the process is confusing enough without adding unnecessary jargon.

Please keep jargon to a minimum. You'll notice I use next to none, for instance. If you absolutely must use some, at least link to a page that explains what it means.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Deskana. I agree that the process needs to be as transparent as practical, and the overuse of jargon can make it difficult to understand for those unfamiliar with SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I feel the community at large uses it more than us, and this is where i'm finding an issue where they will say the user is a duck, and will sometimes even link it, but they couldn't be 100% farther from the truth that it is not a duck. Personally I only use it when I can prove it, and almost always link it. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I think the bigger problem is with the community at large doing it, and also not providing diffs when they say it. Because then I (and the clerk team as a whole) go fishing for diffs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Duck" to me means that either no diffs are necessary due to the sheer obviousness, or only one diff for each account will make the connection crystal clear. Some people are using it to mean "sockpuppet". For fairness to the clerks, I will start pointing this out to case filers when I see it. However, my request to the clerks still stands. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will also let filers know with there case, and totally agree that clerks could kill some of our jargon too. I may use it out of context (non duck wording) more than I think. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved to WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Creating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawnee Smith

Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention (((Selfendorse))) and CheckUser requested (((CURequest))). They've been added to the helper script as well. T. Canens (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Imported the script, don't see anything implemented by the script. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you cleared your cache and what skin are you using? When you open an SPI case, Monobook users should see a "spi" tab; Vector should have an "spi" option in the drop down menu. T. Canens (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Silly me, forgot to clear cache (haven't added script for 4 years...) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Some updates to the helper script:

• Checkusers will be able to set the status to  In progress. Their declines will become 'cudecline' and use  Declined rather than  Clerk declined. Their holds will also become 'cuhold'.
• The script now recognizes 'closed' as well as 'close' in the case status template. Note that 'close' is the form used by the script, but certain people apparently like the "d" too much .
• The script now allows you to add block notices.
  • For socks, you can only add a notice when you are blocking and tagging it. No tag, no notice.
  • For masters, you can only add a notice when you are blocking it.
  • Sock notice presumes indefinite blocks.
  • You can also blank the talk page if you want. (It actually runs faster if you do.)
  • There's one checkbox for all socks. You can't selectively leave notices for some socks but not the others.
  • All block notices uses ((subst:sockblock)). If you want to use another template, you'll have to do it manually. T. Canens (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the slight section organization helps. Subsections may not archive though, I'm not familiar with every archiving option but this is probably easier for users and clerks to review, and worthwhile anyhow. Highlighting this "in case". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Someguy1221 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hey guys. I see you have a bunch of new trainees. If there is ever a need for more, I'd be happy to join. Please let me know if the backlog starts piling up again. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

While we do not really have the staffing levels to accommodate training a new clerk right now, you can still patrol cases as an administrator. There is no rule that says you must be a clerk to review the evidence presented in a case and make a determination. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 05:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added you to the list at the top of the page, please be patient for a review and a clerk trainer. (This does not guarantee approval to be trained) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The ((SPI case status)) will now uniformly appear after the date header in reports created after the change. This allows all information about one report to be contained inside one subsection, and should simplify a planned extension of the script to handle multiple open cases. T. Canens (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)