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.
There will now be an extra "SPI-Archive" button/tab/dropdown item/whatever alongside the standard "SPI" one when viewing a case marked as closed. Clicking it will cause the case to be archived. That's two fewer clicks! Yay! T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, we have one hell of a customer service team here, 4 days for you to get an answer, sorry about that. What you did seems fine and don't worry about it. :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Autopatrolled status for clerks (was: The Clerk list)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I went ahead and cleared half the users off the inactive list, I'd thought I would try and get a consensus here. I'm proposing that to show where our need in SPI is, and to get new trainees into the system, that we say a clerk, trainee, or potential trainee (obviously just the first part for potentials) need to have 50 edits over the past three months AND 10 different cases (like individual cases) edited over the past three months. That would put the following people up for removal right now:
Below the threshold clerks, please double check this, i'm writing this while sleepy, edit as needed
Of course clerks could come back and let us know they want to be active again and we can readd them, and obviously common sense applies. Feel free to tell me i'm out of my mind, or setting the bar too low, or that the whole idea is nuts. ;) And all who I'm proposing this "against", please note this has nothing to do with my feelings towards or about you, but the strain of the backlog on our active personnel. I'm also wondering if we want to list CUs who are actively willing to work in the field to train or something. I'm not sure about this last part, it's just an idea at an insane hour to be up :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Noting that it would be helpful if all clerks were made autopatrolled, if they are not already - they make a lot of userpages with tagging, and it helps to keep NPP clean :) --Rschen775406:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I wholehearted disagree with this threshold proposal. Everyone has a life outside of this wiki world. Unlike CheckUsers (who needs to actively use their tools to demonstrate their needs), clerks are volunteers and there shouldn't be a threshold of any kind in order to keep the status. I, for one, didn't handle a lot of cases lately to focus on my academic career. I'm ok with the autopatrolled suggestion. OhanaUnitedTalk page01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thinking over the proposal today, I didn't like the idea myself, and as I said, I did it at a stupidly odd hour. I have renamed the thread and collapsed the proposal. I support all clerks/CUs having autopatrolled for cases, but suggest WT:RFPERM hears about it before we do anything. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm relatively strongly opposed to clerks being autopatrolled (unless, of course, they were autopatrolled for the usual reason of writing quality articles that do not need patrol). If the clerk has no track record of writing quality articles, then we could be letting anything slide into the encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RE. Autopatrolled relates primarily to content creation and the decision to assign the permission should be based on content work. I don't think the small benefit of making NPP a bit tidier (which sounds a bit like trying to make the sun cooler anyway) does really justify the risk to content. Not that I think any of the clerks are likely to go on a libel spree or anything. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate12:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Right now most of the active clerks are admins and have autopatrolled automatically anyway, and I don't anticipate a sudden influx of non-admin clerks, so this is a rather moot question. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Clerk promotions
The CheckUser team over the past few days have been discussing which clerks are ready to become full clerks. On behalf of the CheckUser team, the consensus among currently active CheckUsers is that Reaper Eternal and Berean Hunter are to be promoted to full clerks. I have changed the list accordingly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Two diffs requirement
All clerks are reminded that anyone requesting checkuser must provide at least two diffs; one for the sockmaster, and one per sockpuppet. It is not acceptable for users to not do so, and any such requests should be declined. You may use the template {{DiffsNeeded|cu=no}} to quickly do so, as it explains exactly what evidence is required for a check (checkusers may simply use {{DiffsNeeded}} with no cu argument). If any clerk is confused or otherwise does not understand this request, please contact me or leave a message here so I can make the reasons clear.
Note that I have requested this before, and I tire of posting these messages every few months, so please actually stick to it this time.
A beta version of the wizard, modeled on the wizard currently used at WP:DRN, is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/report. For now, to use it, you must first add the following line to your skin's js file:
Realizing that SPI archives are getting rather large in some cases, I've modified the templates at the top of the page so that anything that is a subpage of the archive (ie. .../Archive/1, note /Archive/1 has to exist for the template to work), will be displayed. If you don't get exactly what i'm saying, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and it's two sub-archive pages which i've implemented. I do recommend that we stick to a uniform list of /Archive for current cases, /Archive/1 for the first batch that's too big to stay, /Archive/2...you get the idea. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way we can get the bot to automatically create an archive subpage after a certain amount of cases are in said archive? Tiptoetytalk18:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
We could, and it wouldn't be hard for me to code up at all, but we would have to decide if we want it to be page size or number of cases. For page size, it's quite easy to generate a list of archives that is over 100kb. If we were to do it by number of cases, we would have to index index every since case, read every single archive, and then preform the cut and paste. The latter is a significantly larger task in terms of system resources and time. Honestly, I think it's better if we look at page size too, because 20 cases for one sock might not be as 20 is for another. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)08:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking actually of switching the max size to 50KB, as ALO's cases average at ~4.3KB a report and there are 70 of them. (Those 70 are 300KB of pure text, one hell of a load for a browser for one page). I'm about 25% of the way through the coding now. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Clerk promotions under review
Hello everyone,
So you know, I have requested the opinions of my CU colleagues offwiki for the next round of appointments. Currently being considered for promotion are:
I have not put Basalisk for consideration at this time, though I have mentioned it to my colleagues in case they wish to override. Please give us several days to establish a full consensus as discussions don't happen live, and sometimes discussions get long and drawn out due to difference of opinions.
I have also added a "Honorary clerks" section to the list for those who have been with us before, so we can recognize their contributions, and allow them to return as needed. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)07:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Basalisk probably does not quite have the requisite experience, it would be reasonable to wait until the next 'round'. If it would be ideal, I would be willing to take on a trainee at this point. How would I go about that? NativeForeignerTalk00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
There are some shenanigans going over at ANI over an SPI. (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_admin_needed_at_SPI.2C_PROUT.) I've looked at this case a ton, and may have confused myself. There is a ton of extraneous argument, but I'm sure something is going on but not entirely what. I would guess most of the accounts are involved but technical evidence may indicate otherwise. Then again, the technical evidence is suggestive of the fact that somebody is trying to evade checkuser. I really need a fresh set of eyes to look at this, and probably handle any blocks as I'm becoming increasingly involved in the issue over at ANI.
I previously closed it on the basis it had strayed so far, but upon going through contribs I re-opened because of the strangeness going on. It's not terribly productive right now, but it does need to be processed and there is a ton of evidence, although a lot of it is obfuscated. Assistance from any clerks/CUs would be immensely helpful. NativeForeignerTalk17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The two non-clerk users are both CheckUsers, by the way. ;) And, I don't think they're opposing opinions, just different. —DoRD (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, and since the primary reason clerks were introduced was to aid the checkusers, their role should adapt to what we find most helpful. Also, I should note that I use the same tools that the clerks do, so I can assure you that my comment about it being about two clicks and about five seconds of work was accurate. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp15:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the SPI clerking script does make tasks much easier. However, the thought behind my comment at the original thread was that there are some situations when we don't want to have cu-blocked socks reported, e.g. BEANS or DENY. —DoRD (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
As it turns out, there are many older accounts. My results will be posted at yourBiker Biker's version of the case, but they will still need merging and renaming. —DoRD (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Psychonaut, if you don't mind, please copy your evidence statement to the other report and I'll just delete the duplicate. The case is going to end up renamed anyway. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking for assistance :- Sockpuppet investigations/Benedictdilton
Kindly look into the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benedictdilton. I had never tried to create a sock puppet in my small period in wiki pedia. Whatever matter happened was because of the lack of knowledge that same ISP cant be used by 2 users. I assure all administrators and clerks that such kind of matters will not repeat. Kindly take necessary action and if your decision is on my favour kindly remove the tag from my talk page. Seeing that tag generates a feeling in me that I am a cheat.Benedictdilton (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The solution is not to edit the bot-maintained list, but to specify the unnamed first parameter with 1= as I have done here. —DoRD (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And, sadly, that didn't even fix it because the bot doesn't know how to handle it. Why the software allows usernames with special characters in them is beyond me... —DoRD (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The real solution would be to either have the bot's code modified by Amalthea to have it insert 1=, 2=, etc. or to modify {{SPIstatusentry}} to take the = into account. —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Training tomorrow
For those of you who did receive the email about training tomorrow, it has been postponed, and a later date will be in your inbox once I can find a good time for everyone. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)06:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sockpuppet template
When a CU gives a confirmed result I generally use the checked sock if I'm going on just the CU evidence or confirmed sock if I've had a look at behaviour as well, I assume that's ok? My question is when CU pops a (highly) likely result, should I use the confirmed tag if I've had a look as well or the suspected sock tag? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit of a judgement call, but generally the confirmed tag is good in those situations, assuming both technical and behavioral evidence are there in substantial form. NativeForeignerTalk09:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
To reflect the consensus view in a discussion among the checkusers, I confirm trainees Bbb23, Mark Arsten, and Someguy1221 as SPI Clerks. Thank you to all the clerks for their diligence and hard work: this process would fall apart without you. AGK[•]13:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So, are you only accepting admins as trainees? If so, you should disclose this fact. And, in keeping with the note at the top of this talk page (Please remove each as they are reviewed or taken on by a specific user), maybe these other volunteers, that you did not accept, should be removed from the page. LizRead!Talk!15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
As a former non-admin clerk (trainee), I can tell you from experience that clerking isn't something that non-admins can do well; there simply are too many things as part of the role that need the admin tools and not enough things that don't. That being said, the CUs and clerks have always kept the door open because there are a small number of non-admins that could be very helpful, mainly long term vandal fighters that are familiar with many of the LTAs and can spot sock patterns. Sven ManguardWha?13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
More or less what Sven said. We're mostly keeping the listing at the top of the page to give options for new trainees. In order to make somebody a trainee we need an active clerk or CU willing to take them on... and unfortunately as you can likely tell at SPI we're rather short of those. NativeForeignerTalk11:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the fact that admins are preferred should be posted on the page explaining CU clerks, what it involves and trainees. I was considering volunteering but after seeing these old notices on this page, looking at the list of new clerks when they were announced, it's clear that my request would go ignored. If regular editors are the rare exception, this should be noted or you end up with disappointed people applying and failing to get a response to their application to become a trainee. Just be honest about the situation. LizRead!Talk!11:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Liz - The way I've seen it, the position has three requirements:
Be familiar with the more prolific active LTAs and sockmasters, and be able to identify them by their editing patterns
Be willing to slog through repetitive maintenance tasks, which include things like processing the SPI pages and blocking/tagging sock accounts
Have a long enough tenure and a mature enough disposition that people already working in SPI view you as someone they can trust with the inner workings of one of Wikipedia's more sensitive lines of defense
The issue with a lot of the people that have unsuccessfully submitted themselves for consideration over the years is not generally point two (which is where having the mop is helpful), but point three. Indeed, was able to process a lot of SPI cases, even though I had to wait for other users to issue blocks. It certainly would have been easier had I had the mop, but I didn't need it to make an impact. Sven ManguardWha?15:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
But, Sven Manguard, that's is what I was missing. All I noticed was the statement, repeated several times including in the lead, that "Clerkship is open to any user in good standing after an extended period as a trainee". Could you add your three requirements to the section SPI clerks must have the following qualities? Some aspects of what you wrote are already there but I think it could use a fuller list.
Also, and this is me, but I'd have had more of a clue about expectations if the statement was changed to "Clerkship is open to any user in good standing who meets the requirements and successfully passes an extended period as a trainee." Yes, it is longer but the original statement just asking for users in good standing make it sound as if most editors could apply and be accepted. If it is usually just admins, state that.
Again, I'm not saying who should become a trainee or criticizing the selection process. I just think it is actually difficult to be accepted as a trainee clerk and there should not be the impression on the main Clerks page that it is simply a matter of filing a request on the talk page. LizRead!Talk!15:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Liz: I actually do think that the introduction text is wrong, and that it should be changed to reflect reality. Due to a shortage of trainers, we have in the past had to be selective as to who got trained, and that generally has excluded non-admins since they are typically limited in the actions that they can perform. This was on my todo list, but I never got to it... --Rschen775408:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Though, now we have a number of full clerks with a backlog of requests to archive and pending CU requests it might be worth talking about taking on some non-admin clerks so that the admin clerks can deal with the requests where the block button is needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Though it's been a little over a year since I added myself above, I would be happy to assist as a non-admin clerk to help with the backlog. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it can only do really simple merges, which generally don't happen all that often at SPI. Normally we're merging parts of page histories where it wouldn't work. Though it may work on occasion (when we do have really simple merges, so might be useful to keep in mind. Example of use User:Callanecc/merge1 and User:Callanecc/merge2 after making the edits (key to edit summaries, page history 1 = merge 1, etc) I could only merge the oldest (15:14) in with the middle edit (15:15), 15:15 and 15:16 couldn't be merged using this tool. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a FYI - while I may comment on SPI cases where I have taken action as a steward (including globally locking accounts), I am no longer serving as a clerk on those, similar to how some CUs don't clerk cases they ran checks on. (I only use steward tools on cases where there are significant cross-wiki issues, not for the simple enwiki-only cases that compose 95% of SPI). --Rschen775403:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Per Berean's comment, Hell in a Bucket, the requester, has taken a wikibreak and requested a two-week block, which was granted. I think we're done here. I hope Hell in a Bucket enjoys his break and comes back refreshed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned about a lack of transparency in the process of choosing clerks. I accept that the recent events in my own editing history raises concerns about my effectiveness in keeping cool when communicating and I'll add it to the list of things I'm apparently not suited for and move on, the disturbing nature of how this decision is made without any visible discussion or any objective measuring of what qualities are looked for is something I'd like to see changed. For example a reason given that part of the denial is I was overeager, for fucks sake I asked two people almost two weeks a part in early march about clerking one didn't have experience and the other wasn't taking a trainee and then didn't comment on the issue again until there was a thread comment in June by someone else suggesting a need for more clerks. I'm going to be very honest that really hurt my feelings (wah I know), we are all volunteers here and want to help, to say that's the reason why we don't want you is beyond petty and it's hurtful. Ok boo hoo that aside, if we have open discussionas about admin, arbs, crats maybe we should expand this to encompass clerks, I'm disturbed to hear such personal judgements that I doubt would be expressed if it was an open forum discussed in front of everyone. Another editor pointed out on my page that it is a contradiction that clerks and cu are supposed to be open about their dealings and this should be no different I agree, for good or worse we don't protect the good RFA's from the bad ones, and those open forums can do a lot to give direction to areas that people are excelling in or lacking in. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Could you read over the requirements for posting a RFC and then make the above fit the requirements? Because if you can't, I am going to remove it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought I did follow it and it instructed me to ask for help with it so I did. It specifically states "You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later." Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well? To apply for an arb clerk, it's completely secret; ditto with OTRS, and the first stage of CU/OS selection on enwiki. The concern there is trying to be sensitive to the people who are not selected, as that can be embarrassing. Here there is a public list of candidates, and it's clear who is and is not selected. I have shared my personal opinions about their nomination with the candidate. In this case, I heard a few other opinions from clerks and CUs that were shared with me offwiki. If they wish to disclose their thoughts, they may do so, but I do not believe that it is right for me to share their opinions without their consent.
Two things to keep in mind: sometimes, opposition can result from matters that cannot be discussed onwiki (as CU deals with private information), and ultimately the CU team has the final discretion as to whether or not someone is accepted. As a bad clerk or clerk trainee can result in a lot of extra work for others (at best) to a CU violating someone's privacy if they are not paying attention (at worst), extra care has to be taken here. The goal of the SPI clerk team is to assist the CUs in handling SPI cases; it is not another hat to collect. If a CU or clerk is uncomfortable with a potential selection of a clerk trainee, they need to have the right to express objections without fear of reprisal from the candidate or others. And as someone who deals with private information on a regular basis, there is only so much that can be shared onwiki.
To be fair, I do think that the timeliness and organization of the potential trainees list could be improved: there is marked reluctance to take on non-admin clerks, because they are fairly limited in what they can do. Also, if we feel that a candidate is not ready, I believe that we should say so right away, rather than letting them wait a few months only to find that out. But regardless, I don't see any serious issues with the process, and think this RFC as filed, under these untimely circumstances, is inappropriate. --Rschen775406:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Rschen7754 that's why I'm not arguing you guys saying no to me in my case but we have all sorts of forum that we recieve criticisms at RFC, RFA, AN, ANI. If a person melts down because of a simple discussion on their fitness as a Clerk that's a justification in and of itself but how does that person or the community know this isn't one or two clerks making the decision on the whole or that the decision isn't being made on a personal opinion of patience. It's inconsistent and like I say doesn't help that person or the process. I guess I'm also concerned why you would make the assumption that volunteering as a clerk would just be another hat to collect, that statement alone assumes bad faith about the volunteer. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Clerks, both here, and at Arbcom, exist only to help the respective functionaries do their jobs. To the extent they have any power, it is because the functionaries trust them to act as gate keepers to their own authority (that of the functionary). As such, it makes sense to leave it up to the functionaries how to recruit, train, and approve clerks that best serve their needs. Monty84512:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "public discussion" though - the appointment of clerks isn't a community process, just like the appointment of the functionaries themselves isn't a community process, and so it doesn't make any sense to have a big community discussion about it. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate15:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question: No. You touched on the reason yourself when you wrote, "I'm disturbed to hear such personal judgements that I doubt would be expressed if it was an open forum discussed in front of everyone." We're not talking about personal judgements, though. We need to be able to have an open and honest discussion about a potential clerk's qualifications, but a public forum is hardly conducive to such a discussion. Personally, I respect you as an editor, and I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt, but a public discussion could make things much worse. I'm not speaking to your particular case, but potentially, if the comments in such a discussion were completely honest, they could cause a great deal of animosity. On the other hand, if the comments erred on the side of making sure nobody's feelings were hurt, we might end up with a clerk who is ill-suited for the job. In addition, it might be difficult for a clerk who was accepted after a public discussion to work with a CheckUser who opposed them. See what I'm getting at here? —DoRD (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, I would still encourage you to participate in SPI investigations and not get hung up on the clerking aspect. You have always handled yourself well in SPI reports and despite a mad moment commenting on an Arbcom case, you have built a solid foundation here where you are trusted and respected (speaking personally but that is my general take also). You are still part of the SPI team because you are a good investigator. — Berean Hunter(talk)17:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Even though it's backlogged and needs some help, many clerk requests have been sitting there since 2013 and there is no activity to enlist the individuals. Then as soon as the applicant does something silly (e.g. blocked, being the subject on AN or ANI, listed as a party on ArbCom cases, etc.) or being deemed inactive, some clerk/CU will come along and remove their application as they were considered to be "controversial" or "unsuitable" (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). I agree that the current request system is designed to fail an applicant without much hope of success. OhanaUnitedTalk page18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's a reluctance to take on non-admin clerks. I think that we should either fail them outright, or accept the ones that are suitable. I understand the issues regarding the fact that they cannot do everything an admin clerk can do... but Berean Hunter was a clerk before he was an admin... --Rschen775418:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm opposed to non-admin clerks and think the "policy" should be changed accordingly. I understand the pros and cons, but I think the cons clearly outweigh the pros. Bias disclosure: I'm not in favor generally of Wikipedia's avoidance of bright-line rules because an exception that comes along once in a blue moon would be "good". Hard enough to manage this project without 3,000 unlikely exceptions. The world would not have come to an end had Berean waited to become a clerk until after he became an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't on the path to adminship by my reckoning. I had been an investigator that started clerking but had limited abilities to make things progress. Not being able to see deleted diffs was the most frustrating part for me. After clerking as a non-admin for a bit, I suppose this helped build the SPI team's trust in me until Coren nominated me. They probably got tired of me bothering them with questions ('What does this deleted diff say?...and this one...and this one...')
Being a non-admin clerk is a great chance for others to see how you will act without being given full adminship. Your judgment, communication skills and ability to compile evidence doesn't require the toolset. There is nothing which stops non-admins from helping with cases...add evidence, note things which will help clerks and CUs, etc. — Berean Hunter(talk)19:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A new path to adminship: beat them into submission of an RfA request. :-) Yeah, I know the pluses. I've heard them before. I just think in practice it wouldn't work well other than perhaps in the exceptional case. Aren't you glad you're exceptional?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how many exceptions there have been other than myself. Dennis was one, I believe. Hehe, I would have supported you as a non-admin clerk...you just happened to have gotten the bit first and then we began pestering you. — Berean Hunter(talk)20:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Correcting sockmaster
TheRedPenOfDooom (talk·contribs) currently has their own SPI page and at least one sock tagged. Both of them are actually socks of TekkenJinKazama though - note the focus on Theo van Gogh. If someone has the time, would it be possible to move the TheRedPenOfDooom reports to Jin's page? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk)
You would need to submit diffs, even if here on that before we can do that, since CU hasn't provided the technical evaluation. So this has to be decided by behaviour. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)00:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDooom (talk·contribs) was blocked for user name violations, attempting to impersonate another editor who contributes a fair amount to Bollywood related articles. பிரதீக் (talk·contribs) was blocked on May 22nd as a sock of of Dooom. The same SPI report that identified பிரதீக் also noted two IP's, 42.104.2.101 and 42.104.216. ??????? made one edit [1] to recreate an article that Dooom had created earlier but changed to a redirect by multiple editors. If you look at the history of that article, you'll see quite a few edits from the 42.104.0.0/22 range. This is the most common IP range that TekkenJinKazama uses. Several other TJK socks have attempted to create that article ([2], [3], [4] and [5]). TJK has also created other doppleganger socks, see ChanderForYoou (talk·contribs) and Ravensfire1 (talk·contribs). The talk page writing style that Dooom used here is similar to TJK's style [6] with the "sir" at the start or early on. TJK has a fairly distinctive talk page style, combining pleading with demands. It's the edits to the Assassination page that are the main clue though - it's been a common target of TJK. He's used various capitalization differences, phrasing differences but always that page. Dooom's focus (followed by பிரதீக் after Dooom was blocked) points to Jin as the sockmaster. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A few simple proposals for SPI improvement
So, i've been meaning to post this for weeks now. My overall goal with the following proposals is to make SPI more user friendly, error-prone, and backlog heavy. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem: Cases that are often easily decided, sit in the “open” status for weeks on end. Solution: We have all cases evaluated by a clerk of whether a CU is relevant. After this evaluation, they are either endorsed, or put into a “CU not needed” category (see next proposal for more info). Most filled cases actually appear in the opposite of where they should be (CU request vs. open). It’s also hard for users new to SPI to determine if a CheckUser is needed, as they don’t know what CUs check. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Clerks, CheckUsers, and patroling admins
I think this also increases the ability for the case to be dealt with faster, as the clerk has to at least skim it, and if it's simple enough, it can be dealt with on the spot. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we actually have a regular backlog of cases that graduate from not needing CU to needing CU? I felt like the general reason behind this was because of insufficient admins, not CUs/clerks. On the other hand, given that all current clerks (and CUs obviously) are admins, this may actually be beneficial for the reason DQ mentioned above. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that this could be a good idea, I share the concern that this will increase the backlog by a huge amount. Given we have requests at the moment which sit open and waiting to be endorsed for long periods of a time it'll increase the wait time. As with Shirik I think the main problem is not enough admins to do the investigations and take action. If we had more admins reviewing and doing the investigations then they can request CU if needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad and DoRD: An idea just came to mind, what about if (even in the interim) we did away with marking requests (status template) as "decline" or "cudecline" and instead used either "moreinfo" or blank. That way all we're doing is saying CU won't be helpful needs behavioural evaluation (same as the rest of the open queue) or CU might be helpful but we need more info. That way it's not creating two subcategories which automatically looks unwelcoming to unfamiliar admins. We'd still leave our decline template and the reason why just give the user an idea of what happens next. It's early in the morning so it might be a crazy though, but opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a better idea. I think the CU one's image needs to be changed to the clerk image to again get away from that feeling. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've done that, as an easy change and likely uncontroversial. I think changing the status template will be a little more controversial and intricate so I'll wait before doing that. Just realised that this what you proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Status Header wording
Problem: The wording of the status header, and color seem to indicate which cases are going to be handled, and which are going to be left. Example: The CU decline. Most people don’t want to go against the word of a CU. The word decline is a powerful word if we want the rest of the case to be processed. Solution: Use the new system outlined at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DeltaQuad/Workshop&oldid=618477009 at the bottom of the page. The new headers would provide a more accurate description of how cases would be handled, and not looks so dismal if a case is declined. Also I’ve separated the difference between CU more info and administrative more info. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Clerks, CheckUsers, and patroling admins
The color coding and wording need some tweaking, but I agree with the idea. If we decide to go with something like this, Amalthea's bot will probably need some updating. —DoRD (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Backlog, the clerk team, and training
Problem: We don’t have enough clerks, nor the time to create a whole load of learning materials, whether they are admin clerks or not. We aren’t going to get many new admin clerks by not accepting non-admins here. Solution: We have them review cases that have been dealt with, have them explore why the actions were taken, and what policies are relevant to that decision, and explain their own thinking process. We are then able to show them or answer any questions around why something was handled in a certain way. SPI is never black and white, and to try and put it into a material like such, I think would inhibit us more than help us. Then it's also a lot easier to facilitate a group, and move each invidiual along as they learn from an observation stage, to trainee, to full clerk. We could also consider a group of us doing it. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Clerks, CheckUsers, and patroling admins
I personally feel like I could train people better with this method, especially considering my training was exactly this, mentoring. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Training has pretty much fallen by the wayside over the last couple of years, so any proposal to improve the situation will have my support. —DoRD (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've included Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Tools in the editnotice rather than transclude it (as it is now). It's only used in the editnotice so I can't really see a reason to have the two separate, apart from allowing it to be updated by non-admins, but a quick {{editprotected}} or note here would do the job anyway.
I've added a new header template to the group notice which covers accusations without evidence and including personal information.
I've removed the instructions for quick requests, with the intention of moving them to the editnotice template for the WP:SPI page as that's the only place it applies.
Hid the group editnotice on the main SPI page as the majority of the information doesn't apply. The information which does apply I'll move to the WP:SPI specific page notice.
No comment on the first bullet above as I don't understand it.
I like the new header. However, in the first sentence, I would put a period after evidence and start a new sentence with "Doing" just as in the second part of the header. In the second sentence I would use "that" instead of "which".
Body of edit notice. I realize that this is not a change, but I would wikilink the first instance of CheckUser (the bolded one in the first sentence) just as we do on other pages. Also not a change, but I would omit the hyphen in cooperation. As far as I know, it's not the preferred spelling in American or British English.
The collapsible notes. I kinda preferred both the title and the color of the previous one. No biggie, though.
Now, that was a mistake. Not only should you have left it in, but you should have added: "We look forward to serving your needs. Your friendly SPI team." Followed by a picture of a group of ducks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been both sick and unusually busy the past few days, a rather crappy combination that has led to a huge backlog of work for me. As soon as I have my feet back underneath me I'll take a look.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, has anyone noticed the tabs looking weird and being in a smaller font than the body? For some reason it only happens on an unclosed SPI. Nothing I do, such as clearing my cache or the server cache, fixes the issue. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Recruiting
Should we be ramping up our recruiting efforts? Perhaps post an ad on WP:AN or something. The backlog is not getting any shorter these days. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Me and Mike are slowly easing our clerking jobs (although he's definitely doing more than I am); once we pick up a normal pace I suppose it'll help. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Usually the slowdown is having admins to do the blocking once the CUs have done whatever they do. Unfortunately my activity has completely tanked everywhere on Wikimedia this year, and I haven't done much SPI over the last several months. --Rschen775402:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I just came back to the project so I may not be the best candidate but if you need people I'll happily help wherever I can.--ChurchTalk01:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, from past experience it's kind of difficult for a non-admin to clerk. But feel free to help out by finding evidence (especially diffs since a lot of case openers forget them and clerks have to either tell the filers to go back and find them or just do it themselves). -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Small change to SPI helper
Hi all, I've made a small change to the SPI helper script with Tim's okay which changed the "Confirmed sock" option to "CU confirmed sock" and uses a different tag which mentions that a CU has confirmed it. Shouldn't be a difference to how we do anything, just look a little different. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
SPI Team January 2015
Back in September 2014, we embarked on a new type of training, a group type training. It's had it's plus and minuses, and I hope we can scope and change it to be better for future teams. The functionaries team has been recently discussing our new trainees. As a result of that discussion, there are some changes to the clerk list. The final recommended changes passed 13-0. They are as follows:
Oh, and if anyone's wondering, although that's not a "change" per se, I did personally request to be left as a trainee for now as I don't feel I've had time to amass enough experience for full clerkship yet. Mike V is much better than I am at the moment. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made some changes to the {{sockpuppet}} template after some discussion on the talk page and some associated changes to the SPIhelper script so the tagging options will look a little different. Have a look at Template:Sockpuppet#Usage for when to use the three of them ("Proven" is really the only difference, for when the account is a sock beyond reasonable doubt - those occasions when it's so obvious putting "suspected" there feels weird). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Page title
Why is this page titled "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks" and not "Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Clerks"? Isn't the "SPI" part unnecessary? Or is it needed for some technical reasons? Vanjagenije(talk)11:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Recently, through anti-vandal work, I have come across a handful of "IP hopping" or "multi IP vandalism" cases. I've also come across a few users, who seem to improperly clerking on RFPERM and SPI pages. However, these encounters have got me thinking about my role on Wikipedia and a recent barnstar I received from an admin, thanking me for keeping noticeboards organized, that is, in situations that I was either involved in or incidents, such as those on WP:DRN. I would like you to note is that my goal in mentioning the barnstar is not to boast about an acknowledgement, but rather use that as 'food for thought' towards offering myself for another role on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I'd like to offer myself as an SPI clerk trainee. Before making any decisions, I kindly ask that you note the following:
I have carefully read through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Helping_at_SPI_and_requesting_to_join_the_clerks_team and understand what the job entails.
I understand that there might already be sufficient or too many SPI clerks, in which I am more than willing to not overcrowd and cause unnecessary disruption in the already smoothly-running process if there is no need for an additional clerk. One of the reasons why I chose to reach out to you was that there appear to be a handful of inactive SPI clerks; I made an inference of some sorts in thinking that SPI may need additional clerks - once again, that would be a call you would have to make and am not making by any means.
I have an intermediate understanding of the inner-workings of Internet routing, if you think that might be helpful to SPI in any way.
Can you please explain the June 2014 block for disruptive editing? That doesn't seem to be covered in your explanation, although I could've missed it as it was very long.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Quite frankly, I've reviewed the block log once more and cannot seem to recall the exact reason of that block. I will need to do some digging to provide that information for you. --JustBerry (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I have found the information for you. I was testing a script, which ended up vandalizing the blocker's talk page, by adding a handful of barnstars to the page. I have been involved with scripts, etc. for some time now at Beta Wikipedia, etc., less active now though. Since the block was only temporary and my editing activity seems to have been less active at the time, I have not been able to retrieve an unblock request of any sort in my logs for that particular block. However, I have been able to acquire this diff for you to review the blocking warrant. --JustBerry (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: JustBerry asked me to comment on the blocks, because I was the blocking administrator for the first of the sockpuppetry blocks, as well as the disruptive editing block that Bbb23 mentions above. I honestly don't recall the exact circumstances that led me to believe that JustBerry was operating multiple accounts—I think it was some comments on IRC, but I didn't start keeping IRC logs until several months after the incident. I spoke to a checkuser, who confirmed that JustBerry was indeed operating multiple accounts. I don't believe I was involved in the reblock two days later, though my memory of the incident is poor.
JustBerry has mentioned involving a checkuser or functionary in these discussions to try to clear up the block log situation, though I'm not sure that will be particularly helpful. Any checkuser data from the incident would long since be stale by now, so I suppose the only thing of use would really be the BASC discussions (which I've just noticed JustBerry has added to his explanatory page).
As for the disruptive editing block in June 2014, JustBerry made a series of 44 edits to my talk page over about 40 minutes. I blocked for 31 hours, as the disruption seemed to be ongoing. JustBerry mentioned not being able to track down an unblock request—from what I see, there was not an onwiki unblock request. JustBerry removed the block notice with the edit summary "I only ask that the block be removed from my talk page. I will silently obey it for 31 hours." and then posted a {{retired}} template soon after. I admit I'm a little surprised to see JustBerry attributing these edits to a script. They did not seem to me to be automated: the text within many of the templates was fairly personalized, the edits occurred at a fairly human pace, and it seemed unlikely that a script could be malfunctioning for forty minutes without the operator noticing. Furthermore, edits like this don't strike me as edits made by a script. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
User's reply From what I recall, the edits were most probably intended for my talk page in the first place - I appeared to have conversation with GW regarding adoption at the time. However, the last diff GW provided above seems to debunk this. It is extremely probable that the intention was to perform the tests and delete the content afterwards. From a third-party perspective, it would be best to consider more recent edits rather than putting potentially undue weight on past edits. Considering the time and contributions that have elapsed, it would seem illogical to base any decisions off past history; however, it is beneficial to clear it up. While we're at it, it might be best to bring a resolution, closure, or final explanation for the block on the block explanation page, as the discussion appears to have been brought up a few times now and seems to be unproductive if the same discussion were to take place again. --JustBerry (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This entire conversation (and it's corollaries) seem very off to me. As a checkuser much of what you run on is instinct, and my instinct is telling me that something is not right. I find the repeated instructions to disregard past issues (i.e. "it would seem illogical to base any decisions off past history" from above and "the situation should be carefully considered and having any grudge on the blocked user is highly inappropriate" from User talk:JustBerry/SPI Work) to be off-putting. It's like acquiescing to a house inspection but telling the inspectors not to look in the attic or basement. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
User's Reply to Ponyo@Ponyo: Absolutely not the case here. As I mentioned above, the investigation is certainly important to clear up any pending issues. However, making a final decision regarding clerking based off "past history," in my opinion, would be insufficient. As I mentioned on IRC to User:Deskana earlier, this situation has taken a turn into a misleading discussion in the past. I'm trying to take preventive measures in having the discussion take that path, hence my willingness to call in GW to clarify the situation. Quite frankly, I think that was an unfair judgement or assumption to make; however, perhaps I did not make the explanation clear enough before. I would also like to add that a "misleading discussion" qualifies, in this context, as one that mis-attributes the intentions of a user through substantially large assumptions or inferences, which may not be fully warranted. This has not happened in this discussion thus far to my knowledge, to clarify. --JustBerry (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
However, making a final decision regarding clerking based off "past history," in my opinion, would be insufficient. What would this decision be based on, if not your past history? This includes your editing, your involvement in SPI-related areas, and your block log. I agree that people should keep in mind that some time has passed since these incidents, but I don't think it's inappropriate for people to inquire, particularly as some were sockpuppetry-related. GorillaWarfare(talk)23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion may or may not be useful to you, but it's way past anything you're entitled to. In point of fact, you have zero entitlement in this context. Even assuming everything you say is true about the past, some of your behavior shows remarkably poor judgment. I would decline to accept you as a trainee, and I won't predict when, if ever, that would change.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: If you're referring to the blocks from over one year ago, I would be incredible disappointed at that rationale. However, if you're referring to edits, perhaps, in the past year, I would be fine with that, quite frankly. Let me know when or if you want to close this interest listing all together. The former case precisely supports the point I had presented to GW on IRC regarding the underestimation of how much a younger editor's mentality and train of thought can change over the span of a complete year, to which GW had mentioned that they "generally find people are good about keeping that in mind." --JustBerry (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@JustBerry: I don't think your very old mistakes should be taken as an obstacle, but this is not about old mistakes. Just yesterday, you wrote here that your disruption block was because of a script, but then you admitted you was "debunked". That is very recent problem. I have an impression that you are hiding something here. I can't believe that you are unable to remember the reason you was blocked. I have to agree here with Bbb23 regarding your application for SPI clerk. Vanjagenije(talk)21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: I never said that the block was not because of a script. Firstly, the block was over a year ago. I think you missed the point entirely regarding the discussion of where the diffs were aimed at, rather than what they were caused by. I never deviated from the original explanation, which was that I was testing out the different templates, etc. My intentions were to make the revert, GW decided to block, and I decided not to repeal for such a short block. There is absolutely nothing to hide; it's fairly safe to conclude that the SPI clerk application decision is based almost entirely on older edits and block log history. --JustBerry (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Training
On the list of SPI clerks, there are users who are classified as "trainees", but who has not made a single SPI edit in months. Should they be removed from the list? Also, I think the January 2015 training page should be closed/deleted. Candidates had more than 4 months to answer those question, but three out of four did not answer. They are obviously not interested in this anymore, so I think they should also be removed from the list of clerks. Vanjagenije(talk)13:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I would wait six months to remove an inactive trainee from the list. And the page you link should never be deleted but instead be archived. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Not too sure myself with what happened with the January clerk training, i personally found myself too busy to do any and eventually forgot about it until now. LorTalk08:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Trainees confirmed as full clerks
Following a discussion among the checkusers, Salvidrim! and Vanjagenije are confirmed as full SPI Clerks. I give my, and I'm sure the other checkusers' thanks to all of the clerks for their devotion and hard work; the SPI process would not function without you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Much as this discussion is mildly entertaining, I think we're done. My biggest laugh came when I looked at an SPI endorsed for a CU by DoRD. I stared at it for a moment before running the CU. DoRD predicted what the results would be, and, surprise, surprise, he was right. Back to the salt mines, folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And if it really matters procedurally I'm sure current clerks and CUs would pretty unanimously approve an expedited official clerkship for DoRD. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Inactive clerks are free to move themselves back to active status. I don't think that I'll be doing a lot of clerking, but I might as well be on the list. —DoRD (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a former Checkuser needs to get someone to add their name to the clerks' list unless, the Checkuser privilege was removed due to conduct reasons and (or) misuse of tools. Regards—☮JAaron95Talk16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This is funny as hell. Vanja is doing a good job being a guard dog clerk. I'm surprised that he missed that in the archives considering the thousands of cases DoRD has either been a clerk or CU in. Lest there by any doubt, I second Salvidrim above and affirm my support as well as gratitude for having DoRD on the SPI team in any capacity. — Berean Hunter(talk)17:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today, I found a case looking like this. It was not tagged with {{SPI case status}}, and so was not listed at the main WP:SPI page. I found it because it was on my watchlist. But, now I wonder how many pages are there that are orphans because they do not have {{SPI case status}} and are not on anybody's watchlist. Do we have any way to search for such pages? Vanjagenije(talk)10:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This has been a problem pretty much forever, because the method for opening a case isn't exactly user friendly, and because people don't follow the instructions to the letter. As far as I'm aware, there is no way to detect such cases without using a bot to go through WP:Sockpuppet investigations looking for pages that don't have the necessary templates included in them. —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting that this case I mentioned above was opened by an administrator. What to expect from new users when even admins are not able to do it properly. Should we request suck a bot? Or, should we expand Amalthea's bot, so that it also adds such cases to the list? Vanjagenije(talk)17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Setting up a bot to add the proper template (in "open" status) to cases under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation/* when they don't have one is probably a very simple thing to set up, provided you have a bot operator willing to set it up. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Vanja, the admin that opened the case did nothing wrong. A sock messed with the template before the latest case was opened. I tried yesterday to get a Boolean search to work that would find these cases but the searching functions don't work well in my opinion or I'm doing something wrong. We should be able to use the NOT or - operators to find where it is omitted but I didn't form a search expression that was effective. Someone else may try their hand at it and get success. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm commenting on the missing templates..that is what is being discussed, right? I wasn't commenting on the case evidence or format. The admin had nothing to do with their removal. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Random-5000 is the master of one group of accounts initially listed under AtlanticDeep but probably not others. This looks like mistaken identity. Peter James (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This could be done easily with AWB. I am willing to do this if approved by a Clerk/CU (since I am neither). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note on my status, I've not been very active at SPI in the last month or so, as I've been travelling abroad with limited connectivity, but now that I'm back I plan to resume helping out here. TDL (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm around, just not actively looking at SPIs unless I'm explicitly pinged or I notice something on IRC. Feel free to change my status or whatever. Legoktm (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not doing SPIs due to not being approved by a Clerk or CU to do any actual clerk work. Feel free to take my name off, unless there is training i don't think i'll be doing any SPI work anytime soon.. LorTalk00:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet Investigation Clerks are an integral part of the functioning of SPI, and their contributions are invaluable. The Arbitration Committee takes this opportunity to thank them for their dedicated work. However, they do not have authority to overturn a checkuser block, or to permit someone else to do so.
I'm not opposed to any further training, individual or group. Unfortunately I'm a bit busy "IRL" to facilitate this round. Any clerk or checkuser is welcome to take the lead when he or she feels it's appropriate. Mike V • Talk20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
We really do need admin clerks, so I'm hoping Samwalton9's candidacy can be pushed through rather quickly. I don't think I'm the right person to take on a trainee but I'd be happy to help out however I can. I've been around Sam for a long time now at WP:VG and I definitely respect their judgement. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉22:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that Vanjagenije is talking about group training, not adopting someone as a trainee, which was the old procedure. I'm not happy with the lack of clarity in this area, but I have no right to complain as I don't really have time to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if group training is only available to clerk candidates, but I would certainly be interested in participating. The need at AFD to identify, report, and correctly separate out SPA sock accounts in deletion discussions is becoming more apparent. I certainly foresee that I'll be able to look at a few non-CU SPI requests as well (as I understand no-clerk status required for those). Mkdwtalk04:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mike V: I really think we need a new group training. I can take care of the most of it, but I can't do it on my own. Can you just create a new training page (same like for the January training), and I will notify applied participants and monitor their progress? Vanjagenije(talk)08:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Two questions. Shouldn't there be someone in addition to you, Vanjagenije, officially involved (I realize any of us can jump in) in the training? Also, don't we have to formally decide who is accepted into the training? We don't open it to all applicants, do we? Forgive me if this process has already occurred. I confess I don't keep up as I probably should.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes, there should be someone else, but it seams to me that nobody else wants to participate. I posted here about a new training, and more than a month passed till I received any answer. And nobody said he wants to participate directly. I thought maybe if we starts a training, some of the clerks/CUs might decide to take part. Other than that, I agree that we should review applications and decide whom to take to the training. Vanjagenije(talk)18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yea, but then again... who are the really active clerks? There's you Vanja, and the rest (me included) either rarely or sporadically clerk SPI. The last group training session kinda simmered away except for you (with the one trainee still marked as such having never clerked a case in the end). I'm not sure group training is the best idea unless we have really active and dedicated trainer (like DQ was in my own and Mike V's group training). I'd really like to see SamWalton be brought aboard as an admin clerk ASAP and a long group session doesn't seem like the best idea. I don't have a lot of time and I'm definitely not the best teacher around, but generally speaking I'd be inclined to try and take him as a solo trainee, if only to ensure his willingness to help is made use of quickly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Samwalton9, want to? You offered to help and we could seriously use your help, so I'm willing to mentor you despite the fact that I think I'm not the best teacher -- but I'm sure if we work together we can get there, I trust you. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely! Edit filters have been taking up much of my Wikipedia time recently but now that this RfC is rolling I think I have time for it :) SamWalton (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I've come back and forth to this thread over several days of seeing it appear in my watchlist. I'm frustrated because while I know my time is (partly) limited, there is a need for this training, badly. So with that said, and especially with the next few months of ArbCom being a wind down until the new year, I will start/lead a new training. That said, i'm going to need helpers, by far especially with the list of potential candidates. If you are interested in actively helping out with the training, aka beyond around to answer questions and will be able to comment on the training page, please sign your interest here, and drop me your email address if you have never emailed me before. @Samwalton9 and Salvidrim: If we can just fit Sam into the group, and I could get your help in general Sam, i'd prefer to do that. Also pinging other potentially interested people @Ponyo and DoRD:. Pinging potential helpers @Vanjagenije, Mike V, Callanecc, and Bbb23:. -- Amanda(aka DQ)21:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I similarly did not receive Vanja's first two e-mails he tried sending as well.... maybe it's a Yahoo thing, I know they've been finnicky with the MediaWiki e-mail function for a while now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Many times I've noticed that when people with Yahoo! accounts send e-mail to people with Gmail accounts, there are problems. However, they appear to go through, but Gmail puts it in the recipient's spam folder. Has something to do with Yahoo! refusing to do some sort of authentication that Gmail believes is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If you've some time to invest, I'm sure we'd be more than happy to add you Bbb23. This needs an experienced CU to spearhead and DQ is very busy these days. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If you mean so I can weigh in on who should and shouldn't be included in the training, that's fine. If you mean to participate in the training itself, not so fine, although I might be able to participate some. First I'd need training on the training, though. BTW, whose head am I supposed to spear?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Surprised to see no updates about this here. If you guys haven't figured out how the training sessions will go yet, I retain my offer to be available for many hours a day on IRC. I am barely active on Wikipedia, but I'm mostly sitting at my computer working on my thesis, so I'm right here to answer questions if trainees ping me. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Everyone. After failing to obtain enough comments on the functionaries list for promotion of this round of users, I have decided to poll the SPI Team instead to get comments about promotions. Full SPI Clerks please help us form a consensus on this. So without further ado: -- Amanda(aka DQ)16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Samwalton9 I would have recommended you for promotion. You are knowledgeable about the relevant policies and put in a considerable amount of work during the training phase. You and L235 had the only group that actually had joint participation among the members in the group cases phase. Your answers were thorough in the group quiz and you seemed be able to handle cases just fine. Activity comes and goes on Wikipedia. There are other clerks like Richwales who have made as low as 23 edits in the month, and Someguy1221 with even fewer. Both are listed in the "active" section of the clerks. I don't even know what the temporarily inactive and inactive sections come out to. So if you think your SPI activity will pick up again, then I think you should ask to be promoted to clerk. You're clearly an active editor and it's only your recent activity that has been lower. I say lower because you're still in the hundreds of edits per month. Mkdwtalk06:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll come back and let you know if I think I can spend the time on this. I've recently been spending the majority of my Wikipedia time on my role at the Wikipedia Library (primarily off-wiki), thus my low activity recently. SamWalton (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Leave as trainee - scanning the SPI contributions it seems to be limited to the selected cases done in a testbed. I think this was more of the training system than Samwalton at fault but I don't see the experience needed to move forward as an independent clerk. --Rschen775406:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw this user doing very good job on SPI, although he has not been so active in the last few weeks. Still, I think they should be promoted to full clerk. Vanjagenije(talk)18:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Promote -- They completed the training test on seemingly the first day. According to DQ everyone did well so I assume this includes L235. In the group questions part of training they were very close to my interpretation on many of the questions and one of the only ones to point out that SPI cannot resolve other types of disputes and highlighted the needs for diffs. This was on one of the more abstract questions which I thought was insightful. They participated in all five cases at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015/Group work. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia/Archive#09 March 2016 seemed like a particularly complicated case and credit to L235 for pushing for it to be closed. L235 responded to feedback and seemed to learn quickly. I saw nothing that indicated they were not familiar with the process and certainly well beyond the threshold of what experience could simply provide as they continue to clerk. I'd like to also point out this This editor has made 71 edits related to SPI in the month of May alone making up the majority of their edits for the month. Mkdwtalk05:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that although slightly out of date, a list of SPI cases I've worked on (other than archiving), as well as what action I took/recommended and what the final outcome was, is available at User:L235/SPI records. To quote it, Excluding the group training, I have substantively worked on the following (80) SPIs[.] . . . I endorsed CheckUser 21 times (and CU was subsequently declined 0 times, although one CU noted that CU wasn't strictly necessary in that case). I declined CheckUser six times; of those times, CheckUser was subsequently run (or endorsed) twice. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Promote - very good judgment regarding endorsing/declining CU, which is often the hardest part of clerking to pick up. --Rschen775406:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait, what? L235 is a trainee? After this recommended admin action, I figured he was a veteran. There's a strong temptation to see "Unrelated" and close the case without further action even though the behavioral evidence is clear. Promote, obviously. ~ RobTalk19:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I am generally satisfied with this user's work at SPIs, but they have not been active enough. I think they need more practice before being promoted. Vanjagenije(talk)18:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Remain trainee - QEDK let us know that they were quite busy with school and missed quite a bit of training. They answered the questions in the open quiz in short answers and left out some details, but it's possible they simply didn't see the need since by that point others had already answered it. Unless you were the first or second to answer, it was pretty much "per what the others said". In the group work stage for cases, they participated on only one case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rt665j4/Archive. Most of the work had already been done at this point so there wasn't much more to be done. I've reviewed a few of their other cases and nothing jumped out as a concern. I'm mostly recommending more time as a trainee because they missed a fair portion of training between January and March. I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same metric for activity but they made 957 edits in April and 234 edits in May. They've clearly started editing SPI now that it's been made apparent continued activity at SPI is a critical metric. I would hope that after another month or two of solid SPI work would be enough to satisfy the activity criteria. Mkdwtalk05:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oww, I hadn't even noticed this until a while back. They've clearly started editing SPI now that it's been made apparent continued activity at SPI is a critical metric. Tbh, I have work and co-curricular on top of high school and that's the reason I consistently take breaks. Moreover, if I work at SPI, it's because I want to, not because I want a (apparently) higher status. --QEDK (T☕C)16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@QEDK: I think you misunderstand what I was saying when I said, "They've clearly started editing SPI now that it's been made apparent continued activity at SPI is a critical metric". You're missing the context of that comment from when it was made in May 2016. The discussion, at the time, was largely centered on the fact that the trainees were essentially instructed to wait for the next phase of training and almost all of us had stopped editing SPI. It was then that the recommendation to not promote some trainees was being made because we had stopped editing SPI. Myself and other trainees were a bit surprised that the recommendations were being withheld using continued activity as a metric: [8][9]. At the time of my comment, you (and others) had resumed editing SPI and I made a note that you had resumed doing so (as I noted on the other comments as well). I was in no way implying that your entire motivation and reason for involved with SPI was because you wanted to be a clerk -- I was actually pointing out that you had recent activity in light of this requirement for persistent activity. Mkdwtalk18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Remain trainee - not enough endorsements/declines to show that they understand the criteria and not enough clerking work outside of archiving (while it is important, it doesn't demonstrate the proficiency to handle everything that happens before the case is archived, beyond clicking a link and waiting for the script to activate). --Rschen775407:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Promote - Ivanvector, since signing up to be a trainee, has been in process for 18 months. They were consistently the other trainee I saw active throughout the training process. They answered the test on the first day and were the second editor to complete the open group quiz. They brought up points that I hadn't mentioned in my comments and their answers were thorough. They did the lion's share of the work in their assigned group during the group cases phase. They engaged in discussions and asked questions of their CUs and clerks. They've also seemingly taken on other cases in the interim on their own. I also felt they showed a maturity in their willingness to also speak up about how training went at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015#Any action. As for their comment about not being ready, frankly, I don't find clerking any more difficult than many other administrative areas on Wikipedia. There's enough checks and balances in place that each case has multiple eyes on it. Some cases are more complicated than others, so I don't see anything more needed at this point other than experience. That's something that can be gained as either a trainee or a clerk. Mkdwtalk06:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Remain as trainee - the number of cases they've handled independently seems a bit low for promotion, and this CU endorsement with no diffs from a few weeks ago also indicates that I don't think the candidate is ready. That being said, with sustained activity for another month I think they should be reconsidered for promotion. --Rschen775407:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Promote. I saw this user working independently to reduce the backlog. I do think Ivanvector should take the above criticism to heart. Remember that CUs are ultimately accountable for their use of the tools, not the clerks, so you must give the CU enough information in your endorsement to make an independent determination of whether the CU tools are needed. Having said that, this is the type of mistake you make once before learning from it. The more important question is whether the trainee can appropriately analyze behavioral evidence, and his contributions demonstrate that he can. ~ RobTalk19:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ivanvector is actually the only one of those who has been active in SPI this month. I think he deserves to be promoted to full clerk more than those listed above. Vanjagenije(talk)18:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I did say I didn't feel ready when we were talking about it (was it a month ago?) but we weren't really left with clear direction at that point. I thought somebody at some point (can't find it now) suggested that we should carry on clerking cases, so I did, figuring someone would tell me to stop if that was inappropriate. I hope I'm not making too much of a mess of things, but all seems well so far, and the CUs who have provided feedback have been very helpful. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if the team feels that's appropriate. I'm a rookie of course, but just taking on cases and getting feedback if I'm doing it wrong has been a pretty good experience thus far, and I certainly feel more comfortable now than when the training was declared over. I don't think the training failed in that regard per se, I just ran into a series of unproductive circumstances. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a lack of recent activity should be held against the trainees. Vanjagenije it seems like this is a critical metric you're using and seemingly to the point whereby it's being prioritized above the work they've done through the training process up until that point. I know for myself at least, I stopped taking on cases (exceeding the number outlined in the training process) because I stopped receiving feedback. In fact, there are still some cases that have still not been signed off on. In reading the group work instructions it outlines the following:
You both will be responsible for handling 5 cases, one at a time. In those cases, they must be at the open or cu request stage. You will add {{User:DeltaQuad/SPI/Clerk Training Notice}} (Not subst'd so we can see what cases have the template) to the top of the clerk notes section and then proceed to discuss the case on the group subpage which will later be deleted for WP:BEANS reasons. Full clerks/CUs should remove the notice upon signing off. Before you marked the case as closed and move on to the next case, a CU or full clerk will sign off on it.
I'm not trying to wikilawyer you out of your opinion, but I think it should have been made clear to the trainees that a lack of continuous SPI participation between the in-conclusion of the group training and would impact their recommendation of becoming a clerk. Overall activity on the project certainly seems valid though. For example, I've been away travelling. Mkdwtalk20:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mkdw: I am not holding anything against you, I think you were doing good job. I just don't see point in promoting someone who is not interested in clerking SPI cases. You say that you've been traveling, but since 19 March, you made more than 200 edits none of which was SPI clerking (except archiving closed cases). Vanjagenije(talk)20:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I said I completely agree with the metric of overall activity being used, but I do not think SPI activity should be the metric being used to determine whether the other trainees are promoted. It should be recognized that the instructions given to the trainees were to not clerk more cases until the current ones were signed off -- which never happened. The timeframe you're specifically reviewing is from when the trainers essentially stopped being active in the training process and no further instructions were given to the trainees. They were waiting for you (the trainers). Waiting for feedback. Waiting for their cases to be signed off on. Waiting for even a reply to their "what is going on with training" inquiries. Months and months went by without anything. Vanjagenije you even said yourself, "I lost interest in this training and have not participated since". So I am stunned that you're not recommending the others for promotion because they didn't remain active during the time when they were essentially abandoned in the training process. The May discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015 indicated to me that everyone was still very much interested. It simply lacked process. I'm sorry to be this critical, but to not comment on how the individual editors did on the group questions, their overall knowledge of SPI policy, how they handled cases assigned to them, etc. And then the only feedback was "not recently active in SPI" specifying a time when training fell apart, is a disservice to all the work they had already done. I let DeltaQuad and Bbb23 know that I would wait to see how the next step would be handled before I finalized my decision to withdraw as a clerk in training. I think it's the appropriate time to indicate that I am withdrawing. I have too many concerns. Mkdwtalk05:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mkdw: As I remember, we had a discussion several weeks ago at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerk_training/December_2015#Any_action, and it was agreed that trainees should work freely at SPI in order to get experience. I wrote that "I agree that the group training should be finished now and trainees should work freely on SPI cases". That was 23 days ago. Now you say that you have not been working at SPI because we told you not to. But, I actually told you to work freely. Not just me, others also agreed. Vanjagenije(talk)15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes and that was a suggestion. It could not be construed as the going instructions directed to the trainee group as to what they were supposed to do next. It was one of many suggestions and the actual outcome of the discussion seemed to indicate that training was over and that the next actual step for everyone was to wait for the functionaries to respond. While other trainees indicated they had been taking on odd cases, no other trainers outlined this as being the next step. If I'm mistaken, were the trainers instructed to start monitoring these cases again and sign off on the outstanding open cases? Did any of the trainers resume providing feedback and training to the trainees? And if so, it would have been helpful for this to have been formalized in the instructions to all the trainees. They should have been pinged and told this was the decision going forward. Mkdwtalk19:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my read on the end-of-training instructions was the same as Mkdw's, I really didn't see there being a clear direction that we should proceed. I just kind of did anyway, figuring someone would tell me if I was doing wrong. In my memory I did so because one of the other trainees did first, but I haven't really been following what everyone else has been doing. "Wait for the functionaries" was a perfectly valid way to read the outcome of that discussion, though. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I've not been recently active because of school. I've tried to help where I can, but it's difficult. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 21:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the way this is (not) going, again I seek clarification. Is it correct that the SPI team's choices are (1) promoting a trainee to full clerk, (2) leaving someone as a trainee, or (3) dropping them entirely? If that is correct, it would make sense not to promote someone who hasn't been sufficiently active, regardless of the reason, but with a statement from them that they intend to be more active. (3) would be an option if the team has seen enough to know the trainee is not cut out to be a clerk at all, and that could be true for different reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As a former clerk, that would be my impression too. If they're inactive I would say leave as a trainee (unless they've been gone for several months, in which case I would say remove). Otherwise I would remove if they've made a horrible mess of things. As for a few other comments, while I appreciate DQ's attempt to try something new, I think even the old process was better than what this one turned out to be, even if there's few trainers, I think that the limited capacity would still have turned out more full clerks than what this resulted in. As for myself, I'd love to come back, but I'm currently snowed under in real life and am struggling to keep up with just content work. Maybe one day. --Rschen775406:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Just noting here, in case there is any new activity that requires my input, I will be completely unavailable from roughly mid-day Sunday (EDT) until some time late next week. I will have more details on my talk page, but just letting everyone here know. And thanks to everyone who has commented and provided input. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless a member of the team objects, I will promote L235 and Ivanvector to full clerk, and that will end this for the time being. BTW, when you're a trainee, if you make a mistake, you are hopefully told. Once you're a full clerk, if you make a mistake, you're blocked. Seriously, just because you're a full clerk doesn't mean you can't seek input from more experienced members of the team, and it also doesn't mean that at least I will stop picking on you. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I merged two sets of SPI cases where it had been requested and marked {{SPI case status|admin}} by a non-admin clerk. I did not realize that this function should only be performed by admin clerks. I hadn't reviewed the SPI merging procedures since clerk training so I only noticed that detail when I went back to check out them out but I had already done the merges. My apologies and if another admin clerk/CU could review the cases, I think that would be the seeming remedy for my misstep.
It's basically a history merge, isn't it? I think it's probably okay for a non-clerk admin to do it if a clerk has requested it. ...Right? ... Or are we saying that non-admin clerks should not request merges? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Correct, that's how I read it at present. In terms of technically conducting the move and history restore, it's one of the more easy merges to do. The two aspects of it that require an understanding of SPI processes is identifying the target page for the merge and how to appropriately tag the pages (both the moved page and the target page). Mkdwtalk17:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Group training
Following up on a thread up the page, is there any interest among the team in discussing the highs and lows of the past trainings, especially the most recent, with the goal of hammering out a good process for future group trainings? There's not a desperate need for more clerks at the moment, so now would be a good time to talk about it absent pressure to expedite training. Although it would be nice to have more redundancy here :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Some feedback was provided at Clerk Training 2015#Any Action and above during the promotions discussion in terms of how the last training went. Ivanvector, you were apart of both as a trainee and I appreciated your support on a number of issues raised. It's no secret that I was vocal and critical of the process. It was a very ambitious idea and included eight selected candidates. I admire Amanda for taking it on and creating such a rigorous program. It followed a very academic outline and the thoroughness of it was one of the strongest aspects about it. Unfortunately, this also created a lot of material that needed to be reviewed by the involved CUs and clerks. Particularly in the private and public quizzes as well as the group work stage. With such a burden, there needed to be redundancy for leading the training and more clear instructions or wider autonomy for the trainers to unilaterally advance the training.
I think the whole process could have benefitted from a schedule. We lost a number of trainee candidates and trainers, due to the on-going time demands occurring over such a prolonged and sustained period of time. Nearly six months. A schedule would have allowed both trainers and trainees alike to assess their time commitments. Additionally, when lapses in the schedule occur, they can be identified and addressed more quickly. Lastly, there needs to be a more fully realized guideline on the promotion process. If candidates/trainees are required to commit to any sort of training process, then there should be a training evaluation by the trainer(s) (beyond an endorsement or oppose comment) to be included in the promotion discussion.
These are all comments about group training. I can't speak to the advantages/disadvantages of group training over one-on-one training. Mkdwtalk06:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Undo of closure
I undid my closure here because it is incomplete. There are three accounts that are confirmed but behavior needs evaluation. I got tangled here because I can't look into deleted articles for commonalities. I'll be asking for the tools back to solve this but in the meantime please do not consider the "now looking" portion of my edit summary to mean that I still am. If another admin clerk wants to work it then by all means please do. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I just advised a user to mark a case as "clerk assistance required" (case requires merging but no other action), tonly to realize that status doesn't exist. Is there any opposition to making one? I suppose it could be useful for CUs are well in some cases. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"Clerk assistance requested" is basically the same as "open" (because all open cases require clerks, unless an admin can intervene). A while back I suggested creating a status for cases which require the assistance of a clerk with admin rights (i.e. case merges) but that didn't take off. I'm not opposed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
"To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (4.7681653499603) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead.[WQs@owpAMFwAAGObBKEAAABD] 2017-05-04 14:46:07: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError""
...so I ended up having to copypaste the info in the archive to get it restored. At least I think everything is at least recorded correctly. — Berean Hunter(talk)15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, at least how the pages and histories now appear. I'm not going to go through each diff to make sure it's pieced together sensibly, but who would? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Help us decide the best designs for the Interaction Timeline feature
Hello all! In the coming months the Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to build a feature that we hope will allow users to better investigate user conduct disputes, called the Interaction Timeline. In short, the feature will display all edits by two users on pages where they have both contributed in a chronological timeline. We think the Timeline will help you evaluate conduct disputes in a more time efficient manner, resulting in more informed, confident decisions on how to respond.
But — we need your help! I’ve created two designs to illustrate our concept and we have quite a few open questions which we need your input to answer. Please read about the feature and see the wireframes at Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline and join us at the talk page!
Resolved
Comment: @Bbb23: @Vanjagenije: The report has been made here now, as requested, with the off-page discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, sorry for the time it took! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
