Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2018 CUOS appointments

Yikes
I planned on putting myself forward for consideration for CU as I felt perhaps I might meet the description of what is being sought in a candidate. I've decided against doing so purely due to the clause that merely applying runs the risk of having "personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family". Sounds like a more heavy-handed invasion of, and disregard for privacy than anything the average person would ever be subjected to IRL (speaking as someone who actually works with confidential personal information under an NDA on a daily basis). Never mind the fact that it's essentially saying "we might doxx you". If I'm to understand the implication, an anonymous editor such as myself can confidentially identify to WMF for the purpose of signing a privacy agreement, and in response the WMF may investigate that person's identity in a way that seriously invades their private personal life, and even doxx them. Yikes, no thanks! S warm  ♠  04:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think they mean that the internet is full of crazy people who take getting blocked on a website way too seriously and who may try to out you and harass you in real life. Still not pleasant, but I don't think the WMF are the ones doing the unpleasantness. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be more reasonable! I was under the impression that it was referring to scrutiny from the WMF, but now that you mention it, it does seem likely that I have misinterpreted. If that's the case, don't I feel foolish! S warm   ♠  05:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, yeah, that doesn't mean arbcom or the WMF is going to go digging, it's meant to be a warning that in the past functionaries have sometimes been targets for that kind of harassment from disgruntled users. (Also, you do have to sign an agreement to be a functionary, but you don't have to identify to the WMF anymore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing such a note on the Arbitration Election Candidates page, as a warning about the tendency of Arbitrators to attract dedicated stalkers and harassers due to the high profile nature of the job and the fact that it often entails issuing blocks and bans. I am guessing that CheckUsers have the same issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking from my experience, I mostly deal with it from my CU work. Arb attracted a few new ones, but not as many as CU did. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will point out also that oversight is probably the lowest-risk for threats and doxxing among being a CU, OS, or arbitrator. Most people who ask for suppression just want objectionable content to be hidden and are usually well-intentioned. Occasionally people get annoyed that you won't suppress something they want suppressed, but I've taken a lot worse from people who've just disagreed with edits I've made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * you get email death threats (mostly not credible), unsolicited email from sock puppets (bragging about creating new accounts or begging to be unblocked), and targeted for email scams. You may see stupid usernames created to mock you.  Requests are posted to your talk page to investigate SPI cases you've never heard of, and you occasionally get pinged to unblock requests of users you don't know.  Beyond that, there are currently 12 appointed checkusers.  That means that you stick out from everyone else on the site.  People are naturally going to be curious what makes you so special.  They'll probably do a lot of Google searches on your username and scrutinize your edits, looking for hints about where you live and what your job is.  You'll probably need to do a lot of range blocks, so you'll want to be familiar with CIDR.  If you don't understand that Wikipedia page, you might have trouble using the checkuser tool effectively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is all very interesting. Amazing the lengths people will go to harass CUs. I can't imagine what it would feel like to have cyberstalkers harass you IRL like that. I'm still fairly new to rangeblocking, having only taught myself early this year out of necessity (range block requests at AN/I were going ignored), but I've executed a fair number of them so far. I understand how to calculate range blocks with the calculator, consult the guide to see exactly how large a range is, split large ranges into multiple smaller ones, and factor in activity level and collateral damage before choosing to block. Oh, and I can understand the concept of a /64 subnet! So, I'm confident enough performing them when necessary. But, I'd be lying if I said I had any academic understanding of the underlying technology, and I'm not familiar enough with the technical jargon to understand the CIDR article. If you think that will be a hinderance, I should probably hold off.  S warm   ♠  05:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I try to keep up on range block requests at ANI, but it's kind of a pain. If you can figure out how to do range blocks, that's probably good enough.  But if you don't understand the difference between a /16 and a /24, you'll probably have trouble.  You have to use CIDR notation with the CU tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd add a comment (as someone with IP software dev experience), that my feeling is that CU needs people who do actually have technical understanding of IP software technology and knowledge of what the technical jargon means. I'd say CIDR is pretty basic stuff, and if you can't understand it then I suspect you're not likely to be accepted as a CU. I'm not a CU and I have no insider knowledge of the CU requirements, of course, and I might be wrong here, but I think CU should be about more than just understanding how to use the tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ... I'm not a CU... - Care to put yourself forward B!sZ? WormTT(talk) 11:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hehe, but no, there are several reasons I don't want to do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't waste my time then. Thanks to all! S warm   ♠  19:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oversight/suppression by it’s very nature is way more low key 99% of the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t RFA
Seriously, this is not an election, it is a request for feedback. Bolded support/oppose comments are not helpful or necessary. The decision lies solely with arbcom, it really, really isn’t a vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)