On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established user have the right to be notified when and why they are being
checkusered.
The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple
as:
X performed a checkuser on you because Y at Z UTC
that provides clarity and openness while keeping the information
checkusers
use confidential. A note like that would provide vandals with very little information. And the second step of defining a threshold would eliminate most of the vandal checks.
To me this screams of lets keep oversight of checkuser to a minimum.
Right
now there is the ombudsman committee globally (to ask for review from
them
we need evidence, realistically only other checkusers can provide that) and on enwp there is the Audit Subcommittee, which 75% of are either
arbcom
members (be defacto are granted CU ), former arbcom, or former CU. To me that really reeks of lack of independent oversight. Notifying an established user that they are subject to a CU doesnt harm the CU's
ability
to do their job unless they themselves have something to hide. Its not
like
I am asking for CU's to release IP addresses/user-agents or anything else that could assist me in avoiding scrutiny.
Don't even need to go that far - just say "A checkuser viewed the information stored by the web server about you, this information may include [[xyz list if informations]]."
I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response, and I think this is a good thing.
On the other hand, what's being proposed here is essentially providing sockpuppeters or otherwise disruptive users (such as those under certain types of sanctions) a how-to guide so they can avoid detection in the future.
Risker