* Info Control wrote: I agree. The checkuser policy has always said that access will be removed "if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided)"... yet given that people often don't know when they've been checked this seems meaningless. How would such a thing, which the foundation itself describes as abuse requiring removal of access, ever be uncovered? Is there someone going through the checkuser logs and reviewing each to verify that it was valid? I doubt it and would hope not as it would be a tremendous waste of time better spent elsewhere. The USUAL way that we uncover problems is that someone says, 'hey, you should not have done that!'... and if a dozen other people say, 'hey yeah... he did the same thing to me' then we look into it. We should not be espousing the high ideal that we will remove access from anyone who abuses it by running checks without "serious motive" requiring "links and proofs of bad behaviour"... while then making it impossible (for all practical purposes) to ever detect such abuse. There has been at least one past kerfluffle about an unjustified check amongst the very small circle of users who DO have access to the checkuser logs. If everyone had access to see they they, and ONLY they, had been checkusered we'd obviously get alot more complaints... but what if some of them are valid? IMO, if you set up a system with no oversight it WILL be abused. Every time. If you somehow limit the access only to saints who will never do the least thing wrong... the fact that no one can check that will still inevitably lead people to BELIEVE it is being abused. The only way to prevent abuse and the perception of abuse is to allow people to see what is being done. Since this is private information we'd obviously not release it publicly, but the only reason not to release it to the people actually checked is to avoid complaints. And that's never a good excuse.