Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/Jennavecia

Jennavecia

Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi! I'm Jennavecia, also known as Lara (my real first name). I'm 26 years old, and I've been on the project since December 2006, active since March 2007, an administrator since November 2007, and an OTRS agent since May of this year. My main focus on the project is with biographies of living people. I created WikiProject Living people and I'm sure many of you have seen me around the project dealing with various BLP issues and attempting to bring attention to the wider problem. I am requesting Oversight primarily to be an extension of my current work in this area. There are times when living subjects make requests through OTRS to have libelous edits removed from their biographies. This is something I am very much interested in helping with. I believe it is important that these edits be removed as quickly as possible and having the privileges would be helpful.

I would, of course, be available to help with other requests as well. I live in the Eastern Time Zone (UTC -4/-5) and am generally available off-and-on several hours a day via WP, email and IRC. Even when not at my computer, I hear pings from IRC and respond when able.

I am familiar with the suppression/oversight policy and have made requests many times, all of which were carried out. Questions are welcome here, to my e-mail or through IRC. Thank you for your consideration. Lara 06:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement on category deletions

I'm getting opposed for this, which doesn't make sense to me, as it's irrelevant to Oversight. But my deletion log is being linked, so I feel it appropriate to also include the restorations. I'm not really sure what is expected of me here. I misunderstood how a tool would work, I acknowledged the mistake before the tool even finished running, I apologized for creating a mess, and I immediately went to fixing the mistake. I restored over half of those needing to be restored myself, and others helping out restored the rest. Lara 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Jennavecia

Questions

• Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?

  When I nominated myself, I had no idea who else was going to be running, so I don't look at this as a competition. I haven't vetted the other candidates, as I will not be voting; however, I trust that all of us put forth here by the committee are well-qualified. That said, my reason for running is that I see this as a natural extension to my BLP work and believe that my expertise in this area will make me an asset to the team. Lara 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Caspian blue (added 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): It is the known fact that you're a regular commentator and supporter of Wikipedia Review that has been considered a very bad site in the Wikipedia community because people there including many banned users shamelessly bitch about and WP:OUT Wikipedians. Do you think that your WR activities are against roles of Oversight should abide by like dealing one's sensitive privacy? Please tell me about your stance.--Caspian blue 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think the key word there is "has". WR is a very different site now than it was a couple of years or so ago. The list of participants is much broader now, and includes admins, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators, stewards, etc. I certainly don't endorse the actions of all the participants, and I publicly speak out against them. I am particularly vocal in my disgust wrt the outing of editors' personal information and true identities (i.e. Hivemind and the actions of Proabivouac), and would not engage in or support anything not in the spirit of the privacy policy/oversight role. Now to your question. The wording is a little confusing to me, but I think I understand what you're asking. If I don't get it quite right, please clarify and I'll will as well. I don't believe my participation on WR would conflict with my role as an oversighter, or break any rules. Lara 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Aitias (added 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Particularly with regard to Caspian blue's question above, I have another question, which is closely linked to this topic. In the past you have shown that you do not shy away from publishing — for no justifying reason — (cf. evidence) information which was deleted on Wikipedia off-wiki, i. e. wikipediareview.com. If you were elected, would you be more reluctant to publish information which was oversighted on-wiki on any websites or to use any information you have access to through your oversighter rights in order to write any off-wiki comments about a particular topic?

  It's not an apt comparison. Such information would never be oversighted. There's a difference between releasing oversighted material and researching someone's early edits (which is commonly done during RFA, for example) and posting their first edit summaries for scrutiny. Also worth noting that they were deleted revisions only because you deleted your userpage, not specific edits deleted over privacy concerns. As far as "no justifying reason", that's an opinion. I believed then, and I believe now, that it was justified. That said, to answer your question asking if I've stopped beating my husband: I never beat him to begin with. :P I cannot be "more reluctant" than I already am, and have been, in regards to the publishing of sensitive information. Lara 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  Follow-up question from Aitias (added 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In January 2009 you were desysopped per your own request. Later on, in April 2009, you were resysopped. As evidenced by the linked log entries, you did not have sysop rights between 26 January 2009 and 3 April 2009. Your comment on WR linked above is dated 17th March 2009, i. e while you did not have sysop rights — usually, that means one cannot access deleted information. (1) So, how could you access it nevertheless? (2) Did another user, who has sysop rights, provide you the information? (3) If so, this person obviously did trust you. As an oversighter, would you be willing to provide oversighted information if requested by a person you trust/you are friends with? Please note that the latter question ((3)) does especially, but not limitedly, refer to cases 2 and 3 of the oversight policy.

  Speaking to a specific component of your post, it is perfectly acceptable for admins who are in good standing (as Jennavecia was and continues to be) to have access to deleted content. The theory behind this being that they could just as easily re-request their admin bit from a bureaucrat and look themselves, so no trust or privacy is being violated by giving the information to them. I'm unclear whether this is written down anywhere, but it is standard and accepted practice. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  MZMcBride has thoughtfully addressed the first portion of your question. As a voluntarily desysopped admin who had the option to regain the bit at any time, I retained the right to access administrative information by request. And again, it's different than oversighted information, which I don't currently foresee a need to provide to anyone. The only possible exception that comes to mind is death threats, but even that would have to be an exceptional case and one I would be dealing with only with involved parties or those necessary to resolve the issue. Lara 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Durova285 (added 16:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Editors who have need of Oversight can be nervous and poorly informed. Trust is an important factor because the choice they are making is whether to trust a complete stranger with sensitive information; the alternative may be that they quit editing. Your actual trustworthiness is not in doubt in my mind, yet there is a real possibility that someone who recognizes your name only from a handful of posts may view things differently. Editors have come to me for help who didn't know Oversight existed, and in the past I've linked them to the relevant pages and explained it to them. If someone saw your name among the Oversighters raised doubts--how would you suggest I reply?

  I'm a little confused by the wording of the question. I see it as possibly being taken two ways. You're asking for a suggested reply for 1/ a user who sees my name listed and thus has doubts about oversight, or 2/ a user sees my names and has doubts about me as an oversighter. I believe you're asking the former, but in thinking this over, I think the response is pretty much the same either way. I hope 1/ would never happen. I may be feisty, but I don't think I've given reason for anyone to have trust issues (at least not serious ones), and I think that's what's important here. In the years I've been on the project, of which nearly two I've been an admin, there's never been big drama over any of my admin actions (even when I allegedly deleted all watchlists in all languages >_>). Part of adminship also involves the responsibility of handling sensitive information, and I've never had serious concerns raised over that either. I may be a firecracker, saying what's on my mind and fighting for what I believe is right, but I take my various positions seriously, and use my extra privileges responsibly. I think that's what's important to highlight to someone who raises concerns, and people are always welcome to contact me with questions and concerns they may have. Lara 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Daniel Case (talk) (added 16:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): As a general matter, do you believe that administrators with additional flags should be held to a higher standard for off-wiki behavior whether or not that off-wiki behavior involves the use of the flags in question, or indeed the administrative powers at all?

  Generally speaking, yes. I believe all admins and those with extra bits should be held to a higher standard on- and off-wiki. Standards are subjective, though. Do I believe those with extra bits should refrain from being voices of dissent off-wiki? No. Lara 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  Follow-up question from Aitias (added 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Replying to Daniel Case's question above you state that you “believe [that] all admins and those with extra bits should be held to a higher standard on- and off-wiki”. In your opinion, does calling someone a “Lucky bastard” off-wiki — as you did here — meet this “higher standard”?

  Considering the tone and context, yes. Lara 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further question from Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC): You have mentioned your BLP and OTRS work and concerns in this area as your reason for requesting the tools. How do you balance the procedures required for oversight to work effectively with upholding BLP? To give a specific example, suppose in the course of doing routine vandalism patrol on BLP articles, you come across an edit, since reverted but still in the history, to an article about a professional athlete who has had a history of legal troubles saying that he was sexually abused as a child. The article has more than 5,000 revisions, therefore selective deletion won't work. Pop quiz ... What do you do? What do you do? Do you:
  • Leave things as is?
  • Leave a note with the diff on the oversight mailing list for another oversighter to review and concur with, making the change themselves?
  • Oversight the edit yourself and let all the others know you did it on the mailing list?
  • Oversight the edit yourself and feel confident enough in your judgement not to mention it; after all all uses of oversight are logged and if someone has a problem, they'll let you know.

  In such a case, when the information is not supported by sources and is clearly libelous, I would suppress it myself. As a new oversighter, still finding my footing, I would then let other oversighters know about it. Lara 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?

  Without a specific example, this one is difficult to answer. Vandals should be dealt with in a business as usual manner with warnings and blocks. As for everyone else, it really depends on the severity of the case. A simple decline may be sufficient in some cases, in others it may be necessary to take the issue to the community. Lara 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Followup question by Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC): OK, here's a realistic example: A representative of a computer-game company writes to the list noting the repeated posting of a series of (apparently valid) product keys to one of their more popular games to the talk page of the article on their game. Once again, there have been too many edits for selective deletion to work. Do you use oversight here? Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  I would consider this a matter closer to copyright infringement. Unless my interpretation of the policy is off, this doesn't seem like something covered by oversight unless the Foundation steps in. Save that, I wouldn't act. Instead I would follow the request to see what the standard is in such a case. Considering these codes can be shared on various sites all over the internet, I wouldn't expect to see this oversighted. Lara 06:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Last question by Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC): You changed your own username a while back to (I presume) protect your privacy (although you still informally go by your real first name). To my knowledge, you have been subjected to outing attempts here to reveal more information than you have chosen to make public about yourself. Given this, are you comfortable with the potential for off-wiki real-world harassment that can come with having oversight?

  It wasn't a privacy concern. I changed my name because I wanted a change. I still use LaraLove on WR and IRC, and I gave my real name and city to Daniel Brandt when asked me for them and I have my pics posted. Why? I'm not worried. I've had my docs dropped on a site that aims to "pwn" Wikipedians. I just don't care. However, I firmly believe people have a right to whatever level of privacy they want, and those in the position to protect that right should. So, while I'm not particularly concerned about my own privacy, I am concerned with protecting the privacy of others who desire it. Along those lines, females in particular often feel vulnerable in these situations. As was pointed out on the elections talk page, females often prefer to speak to other females about such matters. That's not easy to do when there aren't a lot of females with the tool. A reason for that may be for the reasons that provoked this question. There aren't a lot of females who are unconcerned with the risks. Lara 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Aitias (added 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)): Could you please explain in detail how “Mistake” is an applicable criterion for speedy deletion?

  Well, basically, I realized that my explanation to him in describing how the_undertow figured out his name made it pretty obvious what his name is. Granted, as easy as it is to figure out, as soon as I hit save, I realized that it was too specific. So I immediately deleted it and requested oversight. Full circle. That said, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking me questions now. You're starting to creep me out. Lara 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Follow-up question from Aitias (added 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)): Could you please elaborate on how it is possible to post a user's first name accidently?

  I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking me questions now - is this difficult to understand, Aitias? As Lara explained clearly, it was the way it was described that was the issue, in that it made it too easy to figure out the name. No real names were posted. Majorly talk 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You're sort of relentless in your revenge efforts, to the point that it's literally creepy. Anyway. In explaining how utterly simple it is to figure out his name, which is on the project, and how the_undertow figured it out, I copied... uh, how to explain this without making the same mistake twice... I copied part of a Wikipedia article, and in doing so it made it obvious what his name was. So I deleted it and requested that it be oversighted. It's really pretty simple. Lara 01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• (comment moved from voting section) Fantastic BLP work. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• (Comment moved from voting section)I believe Jennavecia would make a great Oversighter, and her answers to questions satisfy me, even though she declined my friend request on Facebook ;) Firestorm ^Talk 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Yup, I like what I've seen. Tony (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Lara is being opposed heavily because she is honest, participates on WR, and is not willing to put up with the dirty-tricks crowd. See who opposed her for the list. --Eric Barbour (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that this user's vote was discounted because s/he is ineligible to vote in this election. Other than that, let's please keep this civil and AGF. There are editors I respect in both lists below this text. I don't think anyone wins when we disparage editors simply because of how they vote. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Jennavecia

1. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Shappy ^talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Acalamari 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Strongly. iMatthew ^talk at 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Achromatic (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
11. (X! · talk)  · @065  ·  00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
13. NW (Talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Firestorm ^Talk 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Triplestop x3 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
17. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Huldra (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Strongly. ThemFromSpace 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Kingturtle (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
24. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
25. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Law _{type! snype?} 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
27. - Kevin (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
28. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Ironholds (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
30. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
32. MLauba (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
33. AdjustShift (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Skinny87 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Tony (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
38. -- BigDunc 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
40. LittleMountain5 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
41. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
42. — Ched :  ?  21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Strong Support We need more people like her! --Law Lord (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
44. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
46. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Strong Support --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Priyanath ^talk 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Yes. Bullzeye ^contribs 04:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Chris (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
51. iridescent 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Good choice--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
53. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Pmlineditor 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
55. *** Crotalus *** 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Support.--Eric Barbour (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is not allowed to vote in this election - Lara 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

56. ~ mazca ^talk 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
57. SBHarris 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
60. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Strongest candidate on the list. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to Jennavecia

2. Oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Protonk (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Caspian blue 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
7. --Aqwis (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Pzrmd (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
10. JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
11. ~ Ameliorate! 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
12. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Skinwalker (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Captain panda 02:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Noroton (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
17. No. Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Nevard (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
19. — Σxplicit 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
21. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Offliner (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
24. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
25. --Folantin (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Sorry, no ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Cenarium (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is not allowed to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

28. Wknight94 ^talk 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Raul654 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Woody (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC).
32. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
33. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak Oppose Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
36. JamieS93 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
37. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
39. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
40. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
43. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
44. BrianY (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
45. --Conti|✉ 09:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    [1] ceranthor 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    Ok, fair enough, I will remain neutral. ceranthor 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

46. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
49. —Animum (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
50. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
51. Alexfusco⁵ 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
52. (reason) Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)