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]]."