Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Action?

@Vanjagenije, DeltaQuad, Salvidrim!, and Bbb23: I know you folks are super busy right now, and that's fine. I just wanted to remind you quickly that it's now been over two weeks since the traineeships were announced (and that this is still hopefully a thing, just in case it slipped your mind ). When should we expect any action on this? Remember, we're here to lighten your workload.

In the meantime, is there anything we should do? Dabble in SPI requests? Should we add our names to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks? Just watch SPIs in general? Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @L235: Definitely has not slipped my mind. Recent health concerns (as disclosed on my userpage) along with AE2 and ACE voting have taken my time available. That said, I just sent an email to the other clerks about the outline for our training. This hopefully means we'll get some movement by Friday evening or Saturday. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it was some time ago. It might be helpful to drop a new note that the training has actually started. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to notify everyone would be to ping them from the project page for the training. Thomas.W talk 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did that. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate quiz question

Should the "List the three areas patrolling administrators can assist with at SPI" question be there a second time? Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in SPI list as clerk

I guess since we've been accepted as clerk trainees, the template that builds the SPI list on the main page has started interpreting our edits as clerk edits. I filed a couple of reports yesterday but of course I am not doing anything with them that you might call clerking. Is there a way to fix that in the table? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: That is not a problem. Don't bother. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I hadn't thought of that side effect when I added your named to WP:SPI/C, but as Vanja says, it's not a big issue either way. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRC client

It might be a bit off-topic here, but what IRC-client do you recommend for Windows 10? I haven't used IRC since the 1990s (and the same goes for Usenet/NNTP, which AFAIK also still exists; I even remember the good old days on the 'Net before the eternal September...), and thus don't know what's available, and used, today. Thomas.W talk 15:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: I use Hexchat on Windows 8 which does everything I need it to, not sure if there's a better alternative. Sam Walton (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I need to use IRC, I use the browser-based KiwiChat, but it's not for power users. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People don't use mIRC any more? I admit I haven't used IRC in probably about 15 years, I'm sure somebody made something better in that time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use X-Chat. There are certainly better chat programs out there but the IRC channels for Wikipedia are widely used. I think it's a legacy thing and since so many people continue to use it, nothing else has been implemented. Mkdwtalk 19:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I use IRCCloud, and have mostly been happy with it. Also see Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finals coming up

I'm going to have my finals from Feb 29th through mid-March, which automatically rules out my participation during that period. I had pinged Amanda and left a TB notif on her talk page sometime round November regarding this but I got no response. Anyway, since I have to adequately prep for the test, I'll be on-and-off on enwiki from now on. Thank you. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 06:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda

@DeltaQuad: I have to admit that I'm quite confused here. #3 in Agenda is "Discuss responses to the quiz". Where do we discuss them? Is it in the section titled "Responses to ENWP SPI Initial Clerk Intake quiz" or via Google group? In that section you posted "quiz questions". Are those the same question as in the "ENWP SPI Initial Clerk Intake quiz"? Seams to me that some are the same and some are not. Should trainees answer to those questions? If yes, why isn't it in the Agenda? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I'm not the only one who is confused. I would venture to say that I'm even more clueless as to what's going on than Vanja. I'm not even commenting on anything (other than that one long e-mail to which no one responded) because I have zero idea what I'm supposed to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: Any response? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Been lots of days now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the agenda, but it sounds to me like if you wanted to critique the responses in the "responses to initial clerk intake quiz", it would be productive. This training does seem to be moving slower than the previous one, but DQ also hasn't been around much in the last couple weeks. FWIW the pace is working out well for me since I got busy IRL. Has anyone pinged the other trainees to the responses section? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not filling that section out yet, I've been meaning to get around to it but am also interested to see where this discussion goes. Sam Walton (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, will there be an opportunity for us to ask questions back to the clerks and CUs who are involved in this training process? Or will that happen when we're assigned to a mentor? Mkdwtalk 17:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije and Bbb23: Yes, my health (as specifically denoted on my userpage) has been the reason I haven't contributed, and it's not something I can change or know end dates of. The past few days have been the last bit I need for this timeframe, so I should hopefully be a little more active here. I'm not active on arbcom activities either right now. And besides doing some quick important oversights, as far as I remember, I haven't contributed much at all. Vanjagenije, i'm a little puzzled how this is a disaster. Right now we still don't have all the people particpating in the training answering the questions. It was my intentions to have that done first before we replied so we could correct all information, instead of just a few peoples. The people who haven't commented need to be pinged up. Bbb23, i'll respond to your email by the latest tomorrow night. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: I am not accusing you, I just say that is not working. Me myself, as a clerk and admin, have no idea what I should do here and where to respond. I guess trainees have even less idea. You posted the agenda, and then made a section titled "Questions on the quiz", which is not mentioned in the agenda (I already asked you about that above, two weeks ago, but received no response). I don't understand whether trainees are supposed to answer those questions or not. I guess trainees are confused like me, and that is the reason some of them are not answering. Also, the agenda says that we should be discussing responses to the quiz, but I don't understand where are we supposed to discuss them, here or via mailing group? Bbb23 gave his comment in the mailing group, but I'm not sure if that is correct. You are running this training in a way that is compete enigma for me, and if you are unable to edit due to health reasons, then I think it is fair to close the training. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije:. I think you should stop pinging DQ for the time being. Earlier I thought you said you wanted to go back to the "old" training, but now you're saying you want to "close" the training. Perhaps I misunderstand what it is you want at this point. I can't respond to it unless I understand. Perhaps it would be better for you to e-mail me because it makes me uncomfortable to continue this discussion publicly. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: I said previously that I want to close it and start new one the old way. Sorry if I sounded offensive. I don't really think the training should be closed, I just wanted to move it from the stalemate. The training was stagnating for almost a month, so I made a little drama to wake up other participants. Sorry if I was rude. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not used to your making drama, so I was a bit taken aback. Good to know that you can surprise me. And you weren't rude to me. Hopefully, we'll get this thing off the ground sometime soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so I could be clearer with the active part of what we are on and the instructions. I can agree to that and i'll do so by the end of tomorrow, and i'll add dates so that things can get wrapped up and pinged upon appropriately. My health doesn't stop me from editing completely, I just have time periods that I may or may not be able to contribute. If that's a problem, well then that's my failure. To shut down this training though...no, just no. I see the appeal of the old training, but we wouldn't be able to have you (who is the only other person I saw willing to take people on at the time) take on 6 people like we are now. I will try my best to be diligent, but understand i'm not promising anything. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is the first time we've attempted a training like this...so that doesn't help either. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I have sent an email with the instructions to the trainee list. Please please ask about any questions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: If "sending an email to the trainee list" means that all trainees should receive your email the list doesn't work, because I haven't reveived any. Thomas.W talk 14:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: No, she means a list of several of us who talk about you behind your collective backs. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thomas.W At the present, it is the trainers that are using the email/group. You haven't missed any emails. I received DQ's email.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Well, in that case I'm glad I don't get to see it... Thomas.W talk 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I've now answered the questions. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for being last, but "real life" has made itself felt a bit too much lately. Thomas.W talk 22:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you aren't last. Kevin has the last few questions to answer and then we can begin to comment on the answers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness. I completely forgot about those. I've got to go to sleep now, but do smack me with a trout if I don't have those done in 18 or so hours. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next phase?

It seems as though the last of the still active trainees has left responses to the questionnaire as of about a week and a half ago, and there has been no more activity. What's the next step? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone else posted this because I was wondering as well. Mkdwtalk 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to reply and continue the discussion. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I did slack a bit. I'll have stuff posted in under 72 hours. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: don't mean to be a pest but just wanted to remind you about this process. Regards, Mkdwtalk 03:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: I know you said up above that you've been having some IRL problems that have limited your time here and I don't want to be a bother here either, but I want to say I'm frustrated with the pace of this training, just because I know the way that I absorb information. I last actually participated in training activity on January 4 when I answered the questions from the quiz; since then I've just been waiting for something to happen, and when it does I'm going to have to take time to review what I wrote before because it's certainly not fresh in mind six weeks later. I'm not in a rush and I don't think that you should be either, it's just that I don't see this being very productive if we're going to have gaps several weeks long between anything happening in the program. Health stuff is a big deal and I hope you're alright, but do you think it would benefit you to hand this off to another admin? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'm pretty sure if there was any CU/admin clerk willing and available to spearhead this training, DQ would've been more than happy to let them do it. But nobody else came forward to the best of knowledge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, you're absolutely right to be frustrated. I do feel like I have failed you guys with how slow I have moved on this. I did expect others to chime in on the questions from the quiz with their own opinions, but either I failed to communicate that properly or it just didn't happen. Sal is right, if the group aspect could have continued without me, I would have handed it over. But I've found the inconsistency of individual training a hamper to efforts sometimes, and most trainees fall through the crack. My hope was to have everyone in on this so that one person wasn't the apex of the training.
At least for the next two weeks or so, my participation will be simple enough to do in a few spare moments which I have daily, as I prepare the next step of this phase. So with no excuse, I apologize for my causing a delay. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, DQ . Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update DQ. Mkdwtalk 23:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks very much for this DQ, and for your comments. This next phase looks very interesting. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group work

Just to be clear, we're to choose open or cu requested cases ourselves, or they will be assigned? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question. I assumed they'd pair us with a CU soon and then that person would flag cases for which we'd be involved. But now looking at the sub group page it seems others have already been proceeding. Mkdwtalk 18:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Kevin already started so I just went for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that trainee teams are to choose 5 cases themselves. I've already watchlisted the one I saw with the template on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some things

@Mkdw, Binksternet, and DeltaQuad: I've been incredibly busy with my exams (just had History today, the worst has passed) and some other stuff as well. I had added a WikiBreak notice since Jan 31 signifying my absence. First off, I apologize for my inactivity on-wiki, it's just not been possible. I'll not be able to participate fully until 28th of March. I'll read through the cases that's already been done for experience now and I'll drop by around 24th. Thanks. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck on your remaining exams! Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: Go get em! Mkdwtalk 19:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck QEDK! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, guys! --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive trainee?

Hey folks. My assigned partner for the group work seems to have lost interest in proceeding with the training. I have pinged Thomas.W quite a few times now and left a note on his talk page, and although he did respond to my note and is actively editing, he has not participated in the group section at all. Bbb23 also pinged him in a review of the one case I had selected so far, but that case is stuck in limbo waiting for another clerk to review and do something (i.e. Thomas.W), and I have been reluctant to start any other cases before my partner participates, for the same reason. So, what's my move here? Does one of the other trainees want to take on another partner? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: thanks for the message. Just so you know, ping doesn't work unless you place the ping in the same edit where you place your signature; if you insert the {{ping}} template in a subsequent edit there's no notification. And as you know I did post about this on your talk page a week ago; you replied there but then I didn't hear from you at all despite later pinging you in other conversations where I was looking for your input. You took the time to follow up with Bbb23 regarding the delay but didn't include me at all, so I apologize if I appear unsympathetic to your situation which I knew nothing about. Had I been aware, this could have gone differently, but to my mind I tried to communicate with you and you just left me hanging.
I am sympathetic to your situation, and so long as the others involved in this process (trainers and trainees) are okay with the added delay, it's absolutely fine with me to wait on proceeding with this part until you are feeling better. However I would like someone to chime in on the one case that's been left open, it's not fair to the filer to leave it unresolved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: You don't have to stop and wait for something to happen with the first case, since we're supposed to do five cases, just pick a new case and do an initial evaluation of that too. If you want something to sink your teeth into you could also take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique, to see if you come to the same conclusions as I did (not in order to do any clerking on it, though, it has been left open for other reasons, but to see how I evaluated "behavioural evidence"). Thomas.W talk 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thomas.W, I will take a look. I think you misunderstood me, I'm not waiting for the first case to finish before starting another, I'm just reluctant to start another because I don't want another to sit idle when it could be dealt with by another pair of trainees or an experienced clerk. I'm fine to wait until you're up to continuing, just take as much time as you need and then let me know. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: If none of the other trainees can partner with you on the first case, let me know, and if I can, I'll help out. Although cases do sit, I'd rather see closure if possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I have taken care of the first case, endorsing a CU-check, with an extended comment. Thomas.W talk 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily inactive

I've had a computer blow up on me and regrettably will be away for a couple more days. After the noise I made in the thread above I feel it's only proper I let the other clerks know why I'm inactive for a bit. I'm checking in from my phone but it's extremely tedious to edit this way (I'm sure you know) but hopefully will be back by the weekend. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidding goodbye to clerking

(refactored from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015) I am formally bowing out of the clerk training program. I have come to the realization that I'm not built for the kind of steady work that clerking involves. Instead I'm more mercurial, diving in deep where I'm suddenly interested, during periods when I have the ability to focus intensely on Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who was willing to help me along! QEDK and Mkdw – you two might want to link up with another more active clerk trainee for the current phase of group study.

You'll still see me filing and commenting on SPI cases. I'm not leaving the project, as socking continues to spur a strong, protective response in me.

Good luck to everyone here! Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group 3

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015/Group_work#QEDK, Binksternet, and Mkdw

Would it be possible to have a discussion regarding the next step for this group? Blinksternet has left the training process and the five cases have been selected and gone over by at least myself. QEDK has been busy with school, but unless they have anything extra to add, the cases have been reviewed, comments left, and actions taken. It'd be great if a clerk or CU could review and either provide us some feedback or sign off on them. We've received some feedback already but it seems we're lagging a behind the other groups as far comments back from clerks and CUs. Mkdwtalk 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have your cases completed through the end of this weekend at the latest (or if someone else wishes to sign, that's fine too). Work has just hit me working 12 of the past 15 days (including today the 17th) which hasn't left much time. But they aren't going to be able to call me in this weekend, so i'll have time. I do hope to have signoffs done for everyone before proceeding to the next stage. I may also require a day or two discussion with the other clerks to be sure of the best way to move forward. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: I'll be up and running. I just have Computer Science left and I'll breeze through it. What are we doing now? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: If you have time, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rt665j4 has follow up. Also, it might be a good idea for you to look over all the cases including the two case filings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist and see if I've missed anything. I'm hoping by then DeltaQuad will have had time to review all of them to sign off or provide more feedback. Will be good to have you back! Mkdwtalk 22:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done And you've done good work on Alechkoist, nothing missed. :) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other CUs or clerks that would be willing to review, comment, and sign off on our group assignments? Mkdwtalk 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CU logs vs. data

Just verifying my understanding of how checkuser works because apparently I've got it wrong, I thought everything to do with checkuser purged after 90 days. So if a CU is done on an account, the log preserves the data from that check indefinitely? Say a CU is done on sockmaster AA and sockpuppets BB and CC, is the log of that data preserved indefinitely, or indefinitely only if there's a match, or some other thing? So then if say several years later with AA not editing, new accounts DD and EE could be compared against the old log for AA? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the logs are stored, but the logs only show who ran the check, when, the check reason, and what type of data was called (the tool can be used to get IPs, edits from an IP, or users for an IP). Hope that helps, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, sometimes CheckUsers will send info on CU-l, Funct-l. or personally recollect info. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And some data is preserved on a private CUWiki when dealing with LTAers, etc. I suppose when running a check that CUs might have a text field they can fill with the reason (akin to the edit summary) and that sometimes, this summary includes some partial info that can later be re-analyzed in future CU checks after the 90day limit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok that helps. I assume that the logs show what type of data was called but not the actual data? If so, then I think what you're saying is that we can't count on being able to check older than 90 days, but a checkuser might be able to say differently in certain cases. So if a user requested CU on DD and EE to compare to AA, we would decline because AA is stale, but a checkuser might know better and check anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bowing out of the training

For multiple reasons, ranging from health issues to beginning to lose faith in the project (after seeing too much of the negative sides of it for too long, and battling aggressive POV-pushers, PR-people, spammers and what have you too many times), I have decided to leave the training. Since I have come to see my "work" here as just a waste of time and energy, trying to fight against POV-pushers, PR-people and spammers in a fight that can't be won as long as registration isn't required for editing, and confirmation through a valid email address isn't required for registering an account, I will also, at least for the foreseeable future, reduce my presence on Wikipedia even more than I already have, only reading it and doing some minor uncontroversial gnoming on articles that interest me. I wish the other trainees, and the project as a whole, the best of luck. Thomas.W talk 10:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Good luck! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No work to do?

Throw something at me, please. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: The point of the group work exercise was for us to take on a few cases and receive feedback. Since you were away during most of it with exams, you could probably take on a few additional cases to catch up. Mkdwtalk 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any action

When are we moving on to the next stage of our training (Assign "focus areas" based on where the trainees lack of knowledge is)? Also, just noting that I've been working on SPIs on my own and tracking them at (User:L235/SPI records). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging relevant people: DeltaQuad, Vanjagenije.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before we continue, I cannot speak for the others, only myself, but I am disappointed and disheartened with the training process. SPI needs help. There are only a handful of clerks and CUs handling the lion's share of the work at SPI; applications sit in queue for months upon months; and training takes just as long if not longer with no real end in sight. According to the checklist, we're less than half way through. Considering the number of months that have lapsed, it seems doubtful it will end anytime soon. Training isn't working or serving the project. I have to say it. This is a peer run process and we as your peers are owed a reasonable process. One that respects our time and yours. I am deeply concerned that this training program is actually working to the detriment of SPI. It has driven people away, taken up the time of the participants, and has been limited in the effectiveness as a training program. I have certainly received helpful advice and clarity on clerking tasks such tagging, however, if one actually looks at the group assignments, there is very little feedback. Some cases are just signed off with a signature and no feedback. The group test is another example where it seemed like collectively the group was able to answer the questions and the feedback if any was mostly small additions. Nothing critical was missed or misunderstood. At least nothing that would have had damaging consequences if the editors has proceeded. In other administrative areas, gaining experience and working with other veteran peers (in this case CUs and other veteran clerks) likely would have net as much educational growth and provided substantially more practical experience. I fully understand there was a desire to formalize and improve training to be more comprehensive. The process seemed great at the beginning. Looking back now, it lacked only the same drive that established it, as it desperately needed to run it. DeltaQuad, with all due respect -- and I mean it, I ask you to hand off this training process to someone else. It's clear that this training process needs to be handed over to someone who has the time to see this through. Please do this for us. Mkdwtalk 05:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for an "hand-off" seems to be under the mistaken impression that there is anyone else available and willing to helm this training. When this got off the ground, DQ accepted to spearhead the training and donate some of her time, because nobody else could or would. If someone else had time, experience and willingness to push this forward, I'm sure DQ would be more than happy to let someone more available to shoulder the process. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to withdraw as a clerk in training because I believe it would seem self-serving for me to remain so and advocate for change to the training process. The changes would possibly ease the process and therefore to be my benefit otherwise. I think this will also unburden me from providing feedback without concern about the consequences. If what you say is true Salvidrim, that this process can be helmed by only one person in the entirety of Wikipedia, then it is not sustainable. It is ultimately a process that has failed and will continue to do so if the burden of time is so great, expertise requirement so high, and willingness in such short supply, that no one on Wikipedia meets all of these criteria. DeltaQuad may have had the expertise and willingness but by no fault of her own, she did not have the time. @Vanjagenije, Bbb23, and Salvidrim: the trainees need someone take over the rest of the training. Would any of you be willing to get them the last leg of the journey? If not, then I would proposal implementing an interim training process. One that is focuses on obtaining practical experience. There are very few tasks on Wikipedia that cannot be learned by simply doing lots of it while having someone check in and look over your shoulder. The remaining trainee clerks could keep working on active cases and full clerks and CUs would need to review those cases and close them. The current trainees have been "in training" for over 4 months now and some had first placed applications more than 14 months ago. If they stay active and engage in a defined number of cases that in 2 months they be assessed and either recommended for promotion to full clerk or to remain a trainee clerks until otherwise deemed ready by their peers. Mkdwtalk 11:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mkdw: et. al. I know I've been horrible for this training for sure. I offer no defense. That said, I do feel it's time to put your names into the functionaries and work on promotions. I only had one other piece in mind to do before we closed off this long and painful training, and that was a final eval. Given you guys have worked hard through this, and my unsureness about time, i'd rather skip it and move forward. Everyone of your contributions are valued here. Mkdw, if your willing to, I'd love to have you lead the next training, cause I know your skills are solid. So i'd ask you to stay on, as we just put the names forward to the functionaries and end the training. Again, I wish to sincerely apologize to you all, but I doubt it'll carry weight with how I have failed here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that skipping any remaining stages of the process is a good idea. I'm unclear about the promotion issue. Are we talking about promoting people to trainees from clerks-in-training? That's fine. I would object to promoting anyone to a full clerk at this juncture. I don't know about leading the next training (I don't even want to think about it), but I do hope that Mkdw will reconsider and remain. Their criticism has already been helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ftr, I have just formally submitted my recommendations to the functionaries. I apologize again for the horrible lack of communication. @Bbb23: the promotion would be to full clerk. We have some very solid people here, which I've seen preform extremely well, and I see no reason to hold them back to full clerk. They have more sense than some other clerks we've had before promotion. Why would we withhold them from that? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: God, you were fast - are you feeling well? I've just responded to your comments on the list. You have more history than I do, but I've never seen trainees promoted to full clerk so quickly and with so little experience. After dragging our feet for months, why is there suddenly a rush to do that? There's absolutely nothing negative that should be read into my comments as to the trainees' skills, just common sense. Indeed, if I were in their shoes, I would feel more comfortable remaining a trainee for longer and continue to gain practical experience before being tossed out on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History:
  • @Bbb23: I certainly have not been dragging my feet the past few months to stop them from getting full clerkship. Anyone could have recommended them out of the program including me, but I didn't. My original plan was only to run this three months, and I wrote that down somewhere. And given the history list, we've done a lot shorter than 5 months. If they wish to stay back (and we have had ones that have done that before), I will have no objection. But lets give the credit where it's due. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that we're having this discussion about moving forward. I'm a little unclear about what's occurring. I assume that typically the recommendations to the functionaries is the final step before promoting editors to full clerk. This seems to be DeltaQuad's prerogative but does it require the consensus from the other clerks and CUs who also participated in the training process? Also, Bbb23 asked "Are we talking about promotion people to trainees from clerks-in-training? That's fine." Currently, the editors involved in SPI training are already listed as "trainees" so it seems incorrect for them at this juncture to be promoted to "trainees". This also brings up the question, what is the difference between being a "trainee" and a "clerk in training"? Sorry for all the questions. Also I realize I made some glaring typos, especially with tense, in my last two posts. I hope what I was trying to say was clear; it was fairly late at night and well past my bedtime when I wrote them. As for myself, I haven't made a decision. I'd like to know what the next step will be before making that decision. @Samwalton9, Ivanvector, L235, and QEDK: I've pinged the group so they're aware of this conversation. They might have something to add, or I'd like to offer that if they have any questions or feedback, that they can feel free to privately email with them and I can bring it up here on their behalf. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer your questions from my own knowledge, which may differ from others'. In the days before group training, you became a trainee (adopted by someone) and then were promoted hopefully sometime later. I think of the group training as different in the sense that you become an official trainee if you successfully complete the group training. I don't think that's how Amanda sees it, and I could be alone in that belief. Obviously, someone in training could be dropped completely if their performance is sufficiently below par or they don't devote enough time or whatever. But it never occurred to me that we would make promotion decisions to full clerk as soon as the training was complete. BTW, you think the training dragged out too long; the functionaries don't have a good track record of making promotion decisions quickly. Many functionaries aren't interested. Obviously, the functionaries who are also active CheckUsers on the English Wikipedia should be more interested. To show you how clueless I am, I don't even know why the functionaries make the decision in the first instance. Personally, I would think the current SPI team would be better suited for the task. Finally, I'm glad you haven't made a final decision, Mkdw.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I seem to remember (off the top of my head) that Vanja was promoted directly from a group training (correct me if I'm wrong; I'm on a mobile device right now). Aside from being easier to remove or overrule if we do something incorrectly, are there significant differences between our current training and "actual" clerking? We haven't really been "trained", at least in the last month or so, and in the cases I've done on my own (see DQ's note above allowing us to action cases on our own) I've not been using the group training template for my clerk notes/status changes/requests since the group training ended. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory the only functional difference between a trainee and a "full clerk" is that the trainee cannot train others (although tiwht the recent attempts at group training sessions even that distinction becomes somewhat symbolic). Vanja and I were part of the same training session. He was promoted at its end but I personally asked not to be because I felt I hadn't done much during training and wanted to get some more experience under my belt (which is why I was only promoted almost a full year later). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and Vanja were not part of the same training, and you both were promoted at the same time. To say that Vanja was promoted at the end of his training is misleading, because the training started in January 2015, and he was not promoted until July, six months later. I'm assuming the training completed well before that, but I didn't check.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I got confused and conflated two things -- I was in the same training as Mike V, but asked to remain a trainee when he was promoted. I was later promoted along with Vanja. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thanks for pinging me, I had basically completely given up paying attention to this page when nothing was happening for days at a time and it was falling off the end of my watchlist. From my perspective, this training has been a disaster. I'm sorry, I know we're all volunteers and we're all in this for the project and we all have things come up in real life, and I'm not out to blame anyone, but we're not doing anyone any favours by sugarcoating here: this process needs improvement. I think that this training was well-designed and well thought up front, the plan looks good, it just didn't progress. Much of that I think has to do with having a single person saddled with running the training, and kudos to DQ for stepping up to that, but this really needs to have probably at least three trainers just to cover gaps when people are naturally not available, otherwise it stalls. Once we hit the group work stage, it all seemed to go off the rails, at least for me. Of the five cases that my partner and I clerked (before he withdrew) three have still not received signoff or any feedback at all. I didn't end up tagging an account in any of the five; I've done very little in the way of clerking, and in case there's any doubt, I'm obviously not ready for promotion to full clerk. I don't want to give up on the training, but having received almost zero individual feedback, I'm not confident that I should continue to clerk cases as the others have, and so I'm waiting to see what happens next. Just because it came up, I originally submitted my name to the trainee list on October 30, 2014, which is 18 months ago now. Also: clerks don't have any special functional abilities here. Why do we need functionaries to approve clerks? Shouldn't that be up to the current clerks and checkusers? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been working on cases on my own (though I've not taken the trouble of tracking them or placing DQ's tag) and it's been a good experience as far as I can say (I believe in trial and error anyway). As for the training process, since not much of it happened, well resolving cases was one way I learnt a lot. I don't know what to say here really, since I feel comfortable doing what I do now. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I have to say I'm sorry for not answering here sooner. I also have to say that I do not agree with Salvidrim! that that there is [not] anyone else available and willing to helm this training but DeltaQuad. I was pushing the idea to hold new training for months (as can be seen at WT:SPI/C#New_group_training). But, no slerks/CUs were willing to participate for a long time. I was even offering to conduct the training alone, but Bbb23 told me that I need someone else beside me to lead the training. Than, after months of me pushing for new training, DeltaQuad agreed to start the training. I was very eager to participate as trainer. But, the agenda set by DeltaQuad was very confusing to me. I didn't understand at all what I am supposed to do. I even told so here on this page (#Agenda). After not receiving any answer for weeks, I lost interest in this training and have not participated since. Anyway, I agree that the group training should be finished now and trainees should work freely on SPI cases. I do not agree that all of them should be promoted to full clerks. Some of them are certainly ready for that (L235 and QEDK for sure, maybe more), but some of them made almost no edits to the SPI. I think those that are not ready to be promoted should remain trainees and should be encouraged to work freely on SPI and to ask me (or at WT:SPI/C) if they have any questions. They can send me e-mail if the info is private. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, after this training, we could revisit the older method of individual training, with a single trainer. Should make the workload for the trainer more reasonable, cause less stress for all involved, and make it easier for the trainer to respond to the trainee's needs. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into an in-depth training and implementation plan, I do think there is room for a hybrid solution. 1:1 pairings between trainers and trainees will mean the trainee is still subject to the trainer's availability. If it becomes limited, the trainee's experience in the training program will be greatly affected. Having multiple trainers working with multiple trainees will be allow for a certain amount of volatility before it fails. Much of Wikipedia is run on a queue system; tasks are performed (such as tagging, reporting, or commenting) and then those actions are reviewed in a queue by others. There should continue to be a work space for training. A review of the current policies in place and discussion sections. For case work, every case taken on by a trainee should be flagged and can only be closed and archived by a trainer. Trainers who review the most number of cases should be the most familiar with the group and their opinion weighted against other trainers in case there's a major discrepancy in participation. That can all be accounted for in the final review among the trainers when they're preparing their recommendations to the functionaries. Mkdwtalk 04:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So as of right now, I've only received one response on the functionaries list about this. Which is a lot less than normal, so i'm not really impressed. I have no objection to a consensus based model of current clerks (which would include checkusers if they wish), subject to the one fact that where any concerns are received about handling of privacy, that deferral to the consensus of checkusers would happen in this instance. Otherwise, I would encourage proceeding with that method to help things become more self-sustainable here. I will not be continuing on with this training from this point. I've dragged you all through the mud for too long, and it's not something I can continue doing. I also won't be hosting another one any day soon. I still push that a fair amount at least should be promoted from this (yes, failed, disastrous, screwed, put your word in here) training. So many of you have continued to do hard work through this too, I still maintain that you need to be recognized for that with the ability to help our team grow. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: Any word from the functionaries? About where are we going from here? Is there a timeline of any sort? (No rush; I've personally been mainly too busy for Wikipedia recently, but I should be doing SPIs again after around June 1.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerk_training/December_2015&oldid=1076157056"