Wikipedia:Advice for prospective SPI clerks

From time to time, editors want to help out at SPI and sign up to be a clerk trainee, then sit on the "active requests" list for a long time without being chosen. This essay provides some advice about qualities that are sought in potential clerks and how new clerk trainees are selected.

How clerk trainees are selected
The clerk training process starts with expressing interest at the clerks' noticeboard. Individual checkusers select potential clerks for training, though there is internal discussion on the functionaries' mailing list as well prior to appointing a candidate as a trainee clerk.

Qualities of a good candidate

 * Maturity. This cannot be stressed enough. Sockpuppet investigations can be complex and at times can get heated – if your edit history shows that you don't handle disputes well (or worse, have a history of starting fights), this is not the place for you. It should go without saying that if you have a history of recent and numerous blocks for sockpuppetry or other behavioral issues such as incivility or edit warring, you most likely won't even be considered an eligible candidate to become a clerk.
 * Competence. This is an area where you need to be familiar with policy and know when you should take a step back to ask for help. If you have a history of rushing into areas you don't understand and causing more harm than good, you aren't ready to be a clerk. Enthusiasm and a desire to help are not substitutes for competence here.
 * Consistent activity. Training clerks is a time investment for CheckUsers, and so they would prefer someone who will stick around for a while and won't disappear as soon as training is over.
 * Not a hat collector. Same as above, clerks are trained with the expectation that they will continue clerking for a while, and hat collectors tend to stop contributing as soon as they have gotten whatever hat they are chasing.
 * Experience. As explained below. Keep in mind there's no magic number of how many SPI's to file or how long to patrol SPI, but most of the candidates taken on by the CU team had been filing or commenting on dozens of investigations for at least a few months before applying for clerkship.

Things you can do
Checkusers probably won't take someone on if they've never touched SPI. Here are some ways you can help out and show your competence.

Anyone

 * Familiarize yourself with the rules and procedures in the "Sockpuppet investigations" sidebar.
 * File good cases with solid evidence. This is a straightforward enough task, but is easier said than done – it can be hard to find sockpuppets.
 * Read through open cases and make constructive comments where necessary – for example, you could prompt a filer for evidence if they're clearly new to SPI and they didn't provide any evidence, or request a CheckUser investigation if you think there is a good reason to do so.
 * Over time, you will also become familiar with various sockmasters and might be able to identify misfiled cases ("You filed this as a sockpuppet of X, but I think this is actually Y, and here's my reasoning...").
 * A very basic and easy way to get on the SPI team's good side: read the instructions on Sockpuppet investigations located under "Before opening an investigation..." and "How to open an investigation". Double check to make sure the SPI you are filing is under the name of the oldest account listed (the "master"). Always provide diffs from both the suspected sock and a previous sock in your evidence. Add supplemental diffs to other open SPI's in need of them. Do not request checkuser unless there are at least two non-stale accounts, and do not request checkuser to connect accounts to IP's.
 * If you see an SPI filed where you don't believe sockpuppetry is occurring, comment evidence that explains your reasoning. Mistakes happen and sometimes good faith users incorrectly jump to the conclusion of sockpuppetry where there really is none.

Administrators

 * Help handle and close SPI cases. This might be making blocks at SPI based on behavioral and technical evidence provided in a sockpuppet investigation. Admins can also close SPI cases without action if they don't believe that there is sufficient evidence. Clerks can take care of more procedural elements of the process, such as tagging socks, if you aren't comfortable doing so.

Things you should not do

 * Tag sockpuppets because you think somebody forgot to tag them, especially if the case has already been archived. There are reasons why a clerk, checkuser, or admin might not tag someone (for example, LTAs are often not tagged per WP:DENY, and temporarily-blocked users are almost never tagged). If you think a sockpuppet should have been tagged, comment on the SPI (or, if the case has already been archived, ask a clerk on their talk page).
 * Perform actions restricted to clerks – do not move or merge cases, archive cases, or endorse requests for checkuser. Also do not reverse a clerk or checkuser's decision (e.g. re-open a case after it's been closed or endorse a CU request after it's been declined).
 * Edit the archives of cases.
 * Include or link to personal information as evidence on an SPI or anywhere on Wikipedia. If you have private evidence you feel is necessary for an investigation, then email the arbitration committee or an individual checkuser.

A final note
Again, maturity and competence are extremely important features for a potential clerk. If you read these rules and think the best way to prove you are clerk material is to make obvious comments on every sockpuppet investigation, or start trying to do tasks reserved for clerks to show how competent you are, you've just shown that you are nowhere near ready.