Users are entitled to be told upon request whether their user name or IP address (if it is static or semi-static) have been checked within the previous six months; they are entitled to be told on what date and by whom the check was performed, and for what reason.

Requests for this information should be made by e-mail to any admin with checkuser access; users must use the e-mail address they have entered in their Wikipedia preferences. If in doubt about the authenticity of the request, checkusers should reply via the "e-mail this user" function. If the request concerns an IP address, checkusers may check to ensure that the editor making the request has indeed been using that IP.

This provision will apply only from the date on which it becomes policy. Earlier requests for information are governed by the previous wording of this section, namely, "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."

Notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

Slimmy has here published her proposal for checkuser accountability.

Now, there is an amusing D-DOS attack on this: request this information weekly -- or even daily -- and the CUs will spend all their time delivering it. Until, of course, 15 minutes later, when they either ignore you or change the policy. And I suspect that requesting the data is grounds for being checkuser'd!

What do you want to bet that this is one of those rules that exists primarily as a tool for the already powerful, not to protect the innocent?

I don't see what she's all in a huff about if she doesn't have something to hide. Or if one of her buddies isn't socking. I'm sure I've been checkusered a few times. Big deal. I'm not doing anything wrong, and if I were, shame on me. But I'm not going to bitch and moan like I matter just because I got checked.

They should just make the CU log visible, or maybe filter so a user can only see checkusers that were run on themselves.

There used to be a thing called Requests for CheckUser and some months ago I was under the mistaken impression that this was where all requests for checkuser were made, and the resulting checks logged.

You can damn well bet that if Slimmy had the CU button she'd be on the other side of the issue.

There used to be a thing called Requests for CheckUser and some months ago I was under the mistaken impression that this was where all requests for checkuser were made, and the resulting checks logged. It's only after a wiki 'enemy' was suddenly blocked as a sock that I discovered otherwise. I don't know how difficult that would be to do, but it would make the process more transparent and with more rules around how it was done.

Now, there is an amusing D-DOS attack on this: request this information weekly -- or even daily -- and the CUs will spend all their time delivering it. Until, of course, 15 minutes later, when they either ignore you or change the policy. And I suspect that requesting the data is grounds for being checkuser'd!

What do you want to bet that this is one of those rules that exists primarily as a tool for the already powerful, not to protect the innocent?

Sure, enough, shortly after this post, Alison shows up on Wikipedia to talk about it! You're welcome, Alison, glad to be of service!

Users are entitled to be told upon request whether their user name or IP address (if it is static or semi-static) have been checked within the previous six months; they are entitled to be told on what date and by whom the check was performed, and for what reason.

Requests for this information should be made by e-mail to any admin with checkuser access; users must use the e-mail address they have entered in their Wikipedia preferences. If in doubt about the authenticity of the request, checkusers should reply via the "e-mail this user" function. If the request concerns an IP address, checkusers may check to ensure that the editor making the request has indeed been using that IP.

This provision will apply only from the date on which it becomes policy. Earlier requests for information are governed by the previous wording of this section, namely, "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."

Notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

I've said whenever the topic has come up, since I introduced CheckUser,
that the reason the log is private is to avoid the appearance of
incrimination when innocent users are cross-tested against abusive users,
to disprove an allegation of sockpuppetry. Having CheckUser run against
you does not imply any kind of wrongdoing.

If anyone wants such information released about them, they can contact me,
and I will give it to them. But I won't give out any information about the
other users who are cross-checked in the same investigation.

If SlimVirgin wants to imply that CheckUser is indeed a form of
allegation, and act offended, then so be it. That's the price we pay for
openness. You always have the option of ignoring her.

Sounds like the best advice yet.

I'm pointing out that fact that reliably searching through your history is effectively impossible because of the uncertainty created by oversight.

(Judd Bagley) used old Wikipedia dumps to recover some of the oversighted evidence and though that discover Sarah's"sweetbluewater" 'sock' account. So, unfortunately, the use of
oversight managed to degrade accountability which is an unfortunate risk of oversight.

The reason I brought up SBW (SweetBlueWater) was not because I was accusing you of misdoing, but rather pointing out that we know oversights have had a side effect of also hiding material which was not especially relevant in hiding your identity but which was relevant in understanding the history of your interactions.

I think some people deserve apologies from you.

Wikipedia Review has made the claim that they have a checkuser in their pocket, a claim that was confirmed by one of the few posters there that I tend to trust. Therefore, in their own interests, checkusers who post there regularly should make it a point of principle never to use the tool against editors who are attacked there, or in whom Wikipedia Review expresses too much of an interest.

Similarly, when I read Wikipedia Review claiming to have a checkuser in their pocket, my first thought was, "That person will out himself by checkusering me." (It was like finding out which employee has raided the company accounts by waiting to see which of them suddenly buys a new car and a second home in the country.)

Shouldn't someone praise Slimmy for trying to give us little people the privilege she surreptitiously enjoys? (Of course, it helps justify her actions after the fact,