On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John <[email protected]> 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]]." _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
