Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks

Clerks' Noticeboard

Trainee/clerking interest and discussion

Active requests

Simonm223

Simonm223 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

I'm on vacation from tomorrow to next Tuesday and probably won't be online much but, once I'm back, I'd be very happy to lend a hand with WP:SPI. I've mentioned before that I am not, at this time, interested in becoming an admin so I asked how I could help otherwise and was advised to apply to be a trainee clerk. So here I am. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am back from vacation and interested in picking up this line of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drm310

Drm310 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Hello all, I am returning after being a trainee clerk in 2023. I did some training last year with RoySmith, but then had to go on a hiatus which included a six-month absence from Wikipedia entirely. My time is more available now, so I'm looking to see if anyone has capacity to take me on as a trainee again. Thanks again for your consideration. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith

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

I've been a regular at SPI both reporting and as a patrolling admin for a while now, and have several hundred cases under my belt. I've been encouraged to apply for clerkship before, but first I wanted to take the time to work as a regular admin until I felt I had enough experience to ask for clerk training. The extra buttons would be helpful for the SPI work I already do, particularly being able to merge/rename cases on my own. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make the decision, but, FWIW, I fully support The Wordsmith's application.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith If you're still interested, the discussion on the functionaries email list was general approval. IDK how to elevate someone to clerk or get them into training though. It sounds like you need a trainer. (I would be a horrible person for this role I think.) Izno (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: If there's already an ongoing discussion among the functionaries about this, asking for volunteers to conduct the training in that discussion is probably the best place to start. I'll also add my endorsement here, in case that carries any weight. The Wordsmith stands out as one of the better regular contributors to SPI, and new clerks are sorely needed at the moment. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Izno and Sir Sputnik. Yes, I am still interested and I do believe I would need a trainer; I'm just not sure how that happens from the Functionary side. Whenever the next steps are ready, please let me know and I'll be sure to make myself available. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spihelper development

With GeneralNotability inactive for quite a while now, I'm wondering if anyone else has commit access to the Github repository for the spihelper script? Obviously we can just move the whole thing somewhere else if GN is gone for good (I hope not), but it would be a shame to lose the infrastructure (issues, PR's, etc) that we've built up around that repo over the past few years. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. We will need to consider that stewards can now globally block accounts, and as such soon we may need to add a button that allows spihelper to request global blocks. In the future global locks may be removed and replaced with global blocks, so we might also need to remove the global locks feature too. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the bullseye tool - https://github.com/GeneralNotability/bullseye Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this commit: https://github.com/GeneralNotability/spihelper/commit/fabc06720b774698d5d5e7dc67f15f7204dc4f24

That suggests that @TheresNoTime has access to merge commits on that repository. Do you still have that access / know what level of access you have? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I do still have commit access to that repo, yes — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: In that case, could please review the pending pull requests? I've got two right now, one is some misc fixes, the other adds support for the mobile theme. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even though the repo can be updated, the script itself cannot be updated by non-interface admins: User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js is under their own userpage.

I've said in the Discord or somewhere else that we'd do well with an infrastructure that links repos to scripts on-wiki (through a bot that automates deployments), and this is one of the cases where it would be really helpful. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, apparently, there is automated deployments happening on User:GeneralNotability/spihelper-dev.js. I might personally just switch to that for the up-to-date version. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, it's all there. There's a workflow for deploying to the main script as well. Just need to pull commits from the develop branch to the main branch. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said in the Discord or somewhere else that we'd do well with an infrastructure that links repos to scripts on-wiki (through a bot that automates deployments). I think AmandaNP tried to BRFA a bot to do this but the BRFA got stuck with too many concerns (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 9). There is also a phab ticket about it somewhere (phab:T187749). See also User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Linking GitHub to MediaWiki. I'd be very interested in seeing this problem get solved long-term, as it would create some very nice efficiencies for user script and gadget programmers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points on that BRFA. I'm thinking of a different way to configure. Each entry that requires updating a userspace script (say User:0xDeadbeef/foo.js) requires that js file to be linked into a standard json under the same user (say User:0xDeadbeef/fileLink.json), where that json is then linked somewhere centrally.

Legoktm brought up the point about auditibility. I think by linking each edit on-wiki to a commit on the Git repo in the edit summary this would help, and the configuration I proposed above should be secure. If there are more concerns on that, we could also require all repos to be Wikimedia GitLab.

The original bot proposal was also with concerns because it linked the raw url. I'm thinking a link based on a branch in a repo would allow great flexibility. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it also have GitHub support since all of my stuff is on GitHub, and who knows if GitLab is going to last or get deprecated. And I think most repos use a master branch only, and adding additional branches would add complexity. However if you want to BRFA something I'd support it. Something is better than nothing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an interface admin.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an easily fixable problem :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bullseye appears to be down

The bullseye tool seems to be not working any more, and gives me 500 errors. Does anyone else have access to the toolforge project? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've been hitting 500 errors consistently since this morning. Occasionally it will load, but if I try to run any IPs through it it's back to the 500 error screen.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/bullseye, looks like the only one with access is GeneralNotability. Might need to look into the abandoned tool procedure at wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Abandoned tool policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It came back up but now is down once again. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving closed cases

Why is not clerk willing to archive closed cases (closed by myself). Is there some problems? Is there any other active clerk beside myself? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just assume they don't remember to do so. I am willing to close yours and did lots last night before I knew you were asking. :) Izno (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two merge requests

One is at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 25#Case merge.

The other is mine to merge, background at User talk:Izno#Who's who: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tejeindu and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sita786. Izno (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, #Case merging request looks like it never got fulfilled, and it doesn't say why. Perhaps someone can leave a comment there? Izno (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/5.178.202.10

I've been working my way though the closed cases, trying to get ahead of the archiving backlog. Is there any value in keeping Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/5.178.202.10 and it's archive? I'm inclined to WP:G6 them both. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first nor will it be the last SPI dedicated to IPs. Do you have some substantial reason to G6? Izno (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just didn't seem useful to me, but if you think there's value, happy to keep it. RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]