Before applying, have a look at our advice for prospective clerks.
Applications are discussed by the checkuser and SPI clerk team, and new clerks are added as needed. Applications where the editor has become less active on Wikipedia may be removed by a checkuser or SPI clerk.
Applicants are encouraged to actively participate in SPI cases as this will increase their chances of being selected.
Please add your request to the bottom of this section, using the following format:
Clerks/Checkusers - This is a list of editors who would like to become trainees.
Please leave endorsements/comments as appropriate, and remove each request once a consensus (either accepting or rejecting a prospective clerk) has formed.
Editors who have their application rejected should contact the removing editor for feedback before re-applying.
I am in search of someone who is a wizard on the technical side of things (or perhaps just with using SPI helper) to help close out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz#08_November_2024. The resolution there involves creating a new SPI page and moving some investigations currently labeled IW to that newly created page. This goes beyond my knowledge but I am hopeful there is a clerk/CU with the chops to help make that happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've often wondered why {{SPI case status}} doesn't have an explicit "Requires behavioural analysis" state (to go along with Behavioural evidence needs evaluation) to help call out cases in the list which need that sort of attention — this has probably been discussed and rejected for good reason in the past, but I can't seem to find anything. Any thoughts? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, all cases require behavioral analysis. It's what is supposed to be done by the filer in their presentation of evidence of socking. Usually, the cue "behavioral evidence needs evaluation" is made when a CU's finding isn't strong enough to block on technical data combined with whatever behavioral evidence has already been presented. Bottom line: I see no benefit to adding it as a status.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take "CU checked" as that. A CU checked something, and a clerk is still needed to look at something that as not just bookkeeping (otherwise, the state would probably be "requires action by clerk"). MarioGom (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When checking timelines (aka contributions), the table is more compact, fitting double amount of contribs on screen than before.
For timecards, ~3x more timecards fitting on-screen.
Page overlap now accounts for AFD. So, overlap across "Page" and "Articles for deletion/Page (2nd nomination)" is accounted for (example). This is in addition to cross-wiki overlap based on Wikidata links, already supported before.
MarioGom has mentioned two other SPI cases Bansari Patel12 and AayatS that also may be related
Help would be appreciated if someone can either distinguish these cases as separate, or suggest whether some cases should be merged into others. Thanks. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was seeing a couple of cases awaiting a close and wanted to help out! I've been trying to patrol wherever possible but most are being handled by CUs pretty quick and don't need behaviorals. qedk (t愛c)19:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef: For sure, but just to confirm, I am waiting on CU/clerk assent before returning as one, will function as a patrolling admin for now. --qedk (t愛c)18:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioural evidence needs evaluation) to help call out cases in the list which need that sort of attention — this has probably been discussed and rejected for good reason in the past, but I can't seem to find anything. Any thoughts? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
