Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Jackmcbarn
Final: (150/23/10) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 21:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination
– Allow me to present to you Jackmcbarn as a candidate for adminship. For those who weren't around, Jack first became an admin in November 2014. Starting in July 2017, he took a long break from Wikipedia before procedurally losing the bit due to inactivity. I am here to today in hopes to reassure the community that despite the long break, Jackmcbarn is again fit for adminship.

During his previous tenure, Jack logged over 2,000 admin actions, with a focus on deletion and blocking. I was thrilled to see he had returned this past July, and since then I've noticed him at the usual venues such as WP:VPT, being the same helpful person I remember years ago. His recent activity shows he has returned to counter-vandalism, module editing, all the familiar areas he excelled in the past. Indeed, three years is a long break, but I think his track record as a previous admin and his activity over the past three months reconfirms he is ready to have the mop again. No, he is not your typical admin candidate. He is a more specialized candidate with technical strengths, but I believe between his recent changes patrolling, deletion log and CSD log, he has proven himself more than competent in moderating content. I hope you all will agree and welcome him back to the ranks. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  14:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've had the pleasure of working with Jackmcbarn on both the English Wikipedia and as part of the MediaWiki software project. During that time I've found Jack to be an excellent contributor in the quality of his work, demeanor and dedication. There's always a backlog somewhere that needs the attention of more technically minded administrators, and I'm happy that Jack is once again volunteering his time to help improve Wikipedia, as he's done in the past.
 * Co-nomination by Legoktm

Ultimately being an administrator comes down to trust. Besides demonstrating his trustworthiness while serving as an administrator, in 2014, MediaWiki core developers unanimously granted Jack merge ("+2") rights, giving him the ability to approve code to be deployed to Wikimedia sites (a far more dangerous power than being an English Wikipedia administrator). He's done a great job in that area and has my full trust. I hope he has yours too.

I am pleased to be co-nominating Jack. Musik and Lego speak to his many skills and abilities so I won’t repeat what they’ve said. I have been pretty vocal in my belief that we want admins who understand the community and thus have supported more stringent administrator activity requirements. However, I think when a former administrator returns and shows that they still understand the community norms and policies/guidelines, we should welcome them back. Since returning, I have taken notice of Jack’s ability to add real value, even in difficult discussions, and for his continued skill and understanding around deletion (both speedy and AfDs). It is clear he retains both the needs and skills to be an excellent administrator. Unlike most RfAs, we don’t need to guess what kind of administrator Jack would be, we know, and so I hope you will join me in supporting this RfA.
 * Co-nomination by Barkeep49


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay. I've edited under these two alternate accounts: User:Jackmcbarn HG and User:Jackmcbarn no permissions. I've also formerly edited under another account with the same name, since renamed to User:Jackmcbarn (usurped). Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I expect most of my admin tasks to fall into one of two groups. The first group is the more technical side, doing things like managing the edit filter and handling protected edit requests to MediaWiki pages. The second group is the common admin backlogs, like WP:AIV (which I've noticed frequently has reports sit unhandled for hours lately) and CAT:CSD.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Beyond what I mentioned in my last RfA, I've done a significant amount of work to improve processes that I use myself and to reduce possibilities for errors that I see a lot. For example:
 * I set up the tracking category Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, writing both the MediaWiki code to populate it, additional code to point out where the problem is if it's in templates, and also contributed improvements to User:Frietjes/findargdups.js to make them even easier to pinpoint. This category now catches dozens of errors per day, all of which are easily and quickly cleaned up.
 * I made significant improvements to the TemplateSandbox extension, both updating MediaWiki itself and writing User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js, to allow sandboxes to be used to test changes even when the page that uses the template doesn't have a sandbox version.
 * I created MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher.js, which allows pages to switch between different presentations of content. The most common use case for this is that location maps in infoboxes can now show maps at the city, state, and country level, without stretching out the infobox and the page.
 * My best contribution from last time I was an admin that used the bit was my handling page protection of articles. I made it a point to minimize both the level and duration of article protections I set, to keep as much of Wikipedia open to as many people as possible, while still using it enough to stop disruption. I also regularly reviewed Special:ProtectedPages for protection that seemed out of place or excessive, discussed it with the protecting admin if they were still active, and got as many of them lowered back to more reasonable levels as I could.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I've generally tried to stay away from the conflict-heavy/stressful areas of editing, but sometimes it finds me anyway. Since my last RfA, the biggest recurring thing was probably last time I was an admin, when users would claim that some or other page deletion (or other admin action, but in practice it's almost always deletion) I did was unjust and/or demand it be undone. The way I've handled that in the past, and the way I plan to in the future, is to give a reply that explains in detail why I did what I did, citing the relevant policies, and if they still have concerns, I'd point them to where they could appeal (REFUND/DRV/AN/etc., depending on exactly what happened). If their final reply was/is to blow off steam, as long as it wasn't a gross personal attack, I'd just drop it at that point. I'd point to User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 9 and User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 11 as examples of this in the past.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Additional question from Dolotta
 * 4. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
 * A: I'd say content creation. I wrote Self-XSS, but that's really basically it.


 * Additional question from Dps04
 * 5. Thank you for offering to serve the community again. Looking at comments and !votes from the oppose and netural sections, there seems to be concerns over your activity levels. Having returned to full time editing for less than 2 months (as of today) after a 3-year hiatus, what could you point to which demonstrates your up-to-date knowledge of our current policies and practices, and what do you have to say to users (including myself) who are on the fence on supporting your re-adminship request, due to uncertainties as to whether you are going to stick around this time and make use of the tools?
 * A: I've tried to bring myself back up to speed on policies since returning, by watching how posts to the usual noticeboard areas get handled, and also by reading through WP:CENT's archives to make sure I didn't miss any major changes. And I do plan to stick around this time, as I talk about in the answer to Q8.


 * Additional question from S Marshall
 * 6. I see you've done good work, but I'm a bit concerned about your lack of recent experience. I believe I'd support if adminship wasn't irrevocable.  If elected as a sysop, would you be open to recall?
 * A: Yes. I was open to recall last time I was an admin, with details at User:Jackmcbarn/Recall, and I intend to be open to recall under the same terms this time too. (Or if anyone has ideas on a better recall process, I'm open to suggestions to improve it.)


 * Additional question from Ritchie333
 * 7. You say you want to work in CSD. What are your views on WP:G5 and what decisions would you make if you saw an article tagged ?
 * A: Just with no name parameter - that leaves some detective work to do on the admin's part. The first thing I'd do was see if the author was blocked, and if so, whether for sockpuppetry or block evasion. Assuming so, I'd then find the original master's account, and see whether it was blocked before or after the page was created. If the master was blocked before the sock created the page, then I'd delete it as G5, and link to the master's username in the deletion reason. If the author isn't blocked for sockpuppetry or block evasion, the next place I'd look would be WP:SPI. If there were an active case involving them, then I'd leave the page alone until it got closed one way or the other. If there's no SPI either, then I'd check Editing restrictions to see if the author violated a topic ban. If so, I'd delete the page as G5, and leave a permalink to the topic ban in the deletion reason. If all of that fails, then I'd remove the speedy tag, and leave a message on the tagger's talk page saying that I couldn't find any evidence that the page qualified.
 * Follow-up based on Special:Diff/978946173 - nothing at WP:G5 says anything about the quality of the page. As long as there were no substantial edits by non-blocked/banned users, I'd delete. (I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but I'd enforce it as written anyway.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Calidum
 * 8. What was the reason for your extended absence and do you foresee it happening again?
 * A: A combination of becoming busier in real life and a little bit of burnout. I don't foresee it happening again; this time around I'm making a conscious effort to moderate my time here a little bit more just to avoid burnout.


 * Additional question from Z1720
 * 9. What changes, if any, have you observed about the role of administrators or their work on Wikipedia since you were last an admin?
 * A: The most significant change I've run into is that after several admin accounts got hacked, the task of editing MediaWiki and other users' JS and CSS no longer falls to admins, but instead to a new group (interface-admin) that requires 2FA and is granted to way fewer people.


 * Additional question from Ktin
 * 10. What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Wikipedia welcoming to fresh editors? Ktin (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A: I'm not really sure how to answer this. Everything that I can think of related to welcoming new editors can be done without the admin tools.


 * Additional question from Coffeeandcrumbs
 * 11. Do your plan to close any AfDs in the foreseeable future?
 * A: I probably will at some point, yes.


 * Additional questions from Nalbarian
 * 12. Can you describe a typical day as an admin on Wikipedia?
 * A: Not that different from a regular editor. The biggest day-to-day difference is handling things at AIV, etc. instead of adding entries there for other admins to do.
 * 13. What are the steps you are going to take to reduce obstacles that slow or delay an admin related process, e.g., backlogged work?
 * A: When I see inefficiencies in our processes, I look for technical ways to improve them, whether with templates/modules, user scripts, or changes to MediaWiki itself. My biggest improvements here to date have been with the protected edit request process, both in terms of making sure users make the request correctly the first time, and making it faster for admins to answer them.

Discussion
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for Jackmcbarn:
 * Edit summary usage for Jackmcbarn can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support Yes, why not - TNT ✨ 21:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as co-nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Trustworthy former admin who has a need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support welcome back, Cabayi (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as co-nominator. Legoktm (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Support +2 and former admin, can be trusted with the tools, valid use case --DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Clear support. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Support – an excellent technical admin with a proven track record. Welcome back. – bradv  🍁  21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Unequivocal. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Welcome back stwalkerster (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I was extremely impressed with his temperament during the furious discussion surrounding his resysop request. That show of restraint alone pretty much confirms he's still got it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Candidate continues to demonstrate that they are highly qualified and trustworthy. No reservations in returning the tools. As Bibliomaniac says above, they have been a model example of how the system is supposed to work; now it's the community's turn to do our part.   C Thomas3   (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, fully agree with Bibliomaniac15. —Kusma (t·c) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strike duplicate vote, this is the earlier one. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. An easy call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Full support - I recall Jackmcbarn's previous admin term was pretty much completely devoid of drama; we're only here on a technicality (an important one, but nonetheless unfortunate that Jackmcbarn fell on the wrong side of it). This should be a no-brainer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Welcome back — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support was capable and competent previously. Nick (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support signed,Rosguill talk 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I have great trust in barkeep's nomination. Considering they've already been an admin too, I see no problem in returning the bit. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Support No concerns, clear since his return that he knows what he's doing. P-K3 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm partial to editProtectedHelper. Nardog (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Unlike most candidates, there's a record of actually using admin tools. Absent any evidence at all of abusing those tools or falling out of step with community consensus regarding WP:PAG since the last RfA, I see no reason not to support by default. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Support will be a net-positive to the project. I am not concerned about timing, they have already proven themselves capable of handling the admin bit, so why force them to wait another month or longer? « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) support lets hand the mop back to them. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I've reviewed the discussion here thoroughly. I'm persuaded from the nominations that Jackmcbarn was an asset to the project as an administrator, and that he's had enough opportunity to get up to speed on what's changed since he began his wikibreak that he will be an asset with the mop again. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Have zero concerns about past inactivity. It's not like we have a limited quota for adminship. Even if he performs admin tasks at a pace of tenth, of that of an average admin, it's still a positive. - hako9 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) Support The m o p shall be awarded to this fine wikipedian. Arsonxists (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Has shown he knows how to be an admin, and has demonstrated a decent temperament at BN. The opposes are unconvincing to me. We want contributors to have a track record not necessarily so we know they can quote all the CSD criteria, but so that we know they aren't nuts and aren't going to cause problems and drama. There are probably things Jackmcbarn has forgot, but his long history has shown us that he's reasonable enough that if he doesn't know something, he can be trusted to look it up and not double down on the wrong things. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 18) Support – This is a former administrator who was well-respected and has done nothing to cause concern, both in the last few months and in their time as an administrator. I also respect the judgment of the nominators. For these reasons, I think this is a clear support. Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 19) Support; no concerns. Sometimes it can be tough to predict how a person will handle the tools, but in this case we don’t have to guess. 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Tenure is a bit short, but I'm not seeing any red flags. Just try not to delete the main page :) -  F ASTILY   00:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 21) Why not? -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - we could really do with more admins in the technical side of things, where Jack has particular competency. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, for basically the same reasons I supported the candidate's first RfA. Welcome back!  Mini  apolis  02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 25) Support has proven his competency as an administrator in his previous stint. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 26) I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that Jackmcbarn would abuse the tools if given.  SQL Query me!  03:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 27) Support backed by evidence of past success. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I have no concerns and echo the comments of 28bytes, Mz7, and TNT. -- The SandDoctor Talk 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Solid technical contributions. —  Newslinger  talk   03:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Welcome back, Jack. He took a longer than average wikibreak. He was a good administrator before his break and has been a good editor recently. No evidence has been presented that there were any major problems with his use of the tools in the past. Let's give him his toolbox back. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 31) Welcome back Girth Summit  (blether)  05:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 32) Absolutely, with none of the doubt i expressed last time; the candidate has proven himself easily; happy days, LindsayHello 06:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Already proven, well trusted by the community, this RfA is a no brainer if ever I saw one!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 34) Support with thanks for returning to service. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 35) Support – was a good admin before, no reason to think this won't be the case the second time around. Graham 87 07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Seems a little overqualified after seeing the response to Q2. Like calm down here. We don't need the admin of a century; it's fine to just be only okay here. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 37) Support — Well that's an easy one! everything I would want an admin to be. Just an added bonus that they previously were one. I wish you all the best, —Melbourne<b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk  08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Indeedy, why not.   scope_creep Talk  08:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 39) Overdue ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 10:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 40) Support has proven they can be trusted. Glen (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 41) Support per the nominator :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the nominator is someone you can trust? I'm pretty sure they're in the WP:Cabal. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The long absence does not concern me, and I saw no indication that he used the bit improperly while he was an admin. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support — I feel comfortable with supporting. Deb (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support by default because I believe that Jackmcbarn should have gotten the bit back at BN when he asked for it. I appreciate that I'm in the minority on that, but it would feel wrong not to support when I think he should already have a mop. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — He was previously trusted with the tools and a positive contributor with them. I see no reason to think anything has changed. <b style="color: Black">Goodnight</b> mush <sup style="color:blue">Talk 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) I hear the concerns of the opposers, but based on the candidate's temperament as seen at BN, and their previous record, I see no evidence that they'd be anything other than a net positive with the mop. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) per noms – Majavah talk &middot; edits 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Support things don't change much round here nowadays - the site is stable, almost ossified when it comes to policy change. JackMcBarn earned our trust in the past, and judging from the edits since they've returned they are back, and back up to speed.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Candidate is trustworthy and has reliable history with the tools previously. Current contributions are consistent with those in the past. Not concerned about gaps in editing history; life happens.  Spencer T• C 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Support again, as I did in your first RfA. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Support — It’s true people can get rusty after taking long breaks from editing then returning but from their recent edits it’s abundantly clear they still have a clue about how things work here, coupled with the fact that they once wielded the mop and merely procedurally lost it due to inactivity, I’d say that is indicative of them having the trust of the community at that point in time which is truly the basic foundation of being an administrator. The content creation issues are at best negligible considering their great effort in other areas, most especially the technical areas and to be honest perfection is a bar set too high, an admin need not be all knowing/all doing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Added: Specifically, I have seen the candidate around a lot after their BN request, and my impressions are exclusively positive.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Obviously an experienced admin, The editing hiatus isn't a concern for me, I see no red flags here, Easy support. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I've got some WD40 for the rust - oh, and see my trial period proposal below. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - barring no other issues, will most likely be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I just don't get the "two months is not enough time to refamiliarize yourself" argument from the Opposes. His previous track record was excellent and there's no reason to suspect he will be so out of touch as to go on a deletion rampage or anything else. It would be highly out of his previously demonstrated character to presume that is a risk. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. If people want to help out, let them help out. Haukur (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 17) Easy support. I've needed his hand once with a user. No issues with Jack returning as mop tender. <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Was trusted by the community with the mop once, and apparently didn't do anything then or in the 7 weeks he has been back recently to lose that trust. Opposes seem to primarily focus on insufficient length of return to editing, leading to a concern whether he will be aware of changed processes, and whether he is "dedicated" enough to last 2nd time round. Our processes change all the time, so I am much more reassured by the fact that he handled apparently handled evolving norms and processes on the wiki acceptably during his previous admin tenure, than I would be by more weeks or months of recent editing now. And if his activity levels decrease again at some point in the future, that's OK; in that case best wishes to him in his future endeavours, with thanks for whatever mopping he will have done in the meanwhile. Martinp (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 19) Has done good work in the past; not under a cloud; is open to recall, so any error on our part is correctable.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Jack was given the bit with the full support of the community and did not lose it under a cloud. I had a nagging doubt about G5, but Jack has explained his position politely and thoroughly, and I sure as hell won't oppose an admin candidate for not being in perfect alignment with my views. Moreover, I checked out his deletion history and the only G5 I could possibly take issue with is Medicine in the Islamic world and only then because it survived AfD. Administrators are not required to be perfect. The opposition seems a little strange, and also troubling, as it may encourage other longtime admins to make token edits just so they don't land in this position; on the contrary, we should assume inactive admins with no track record of trouble will not behave any worst than the first time round. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, mainly per Ritchie. It would be better if Jack had waited several months, but I don't see an indication that anything would come out in those seven months to indicate that he is unsuited for the tools. Has a track record that I trust. It is possible for admins to learn on the job -- I know I do. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. No concerns; candidate answers show willingness to update himself on latest policy. Welcome back. Deryck C. 22:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I thought over, quite a while, about the opposition voices. The most valid point was the long period of absence. But, this may not be predictive of the future and I really didn't see behavioural problems or judgement issues. Meets my minimum criteria, has my support. Ifnord (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 24) I looked at the old RFA, and see no red flags. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 25) Support – Should be a net positive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 27) Support by giving the benefit of the doubt to the first RfA. He says he won't burnout again but, honestly, that's no scarlet letter to me. Sometimes interests change, and then sometimes they change back. Come and go as you please. We're making him a WP admin, not a 33rd degree Mason. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - Education before the job is overvalued IMO; as with all editing, most of it is done on the job, and we need to focus more on whether a given candidate has the maturity, responsibleness and competence to not break everything before they figure it out. So, the only question here, one that's been central lately regarding low-activity senior admins, is whether they really want the bit as a trophy or they want to return to editing. I don't think anyone with such trust and appreciation in the community would put themself through all this, with three other respected editors putting their reputation on the line, if they didn't intend to come back to editing. The flag isn't worth that much. Could this have waited till February? Sure. But there was this September thing that could not wait till October and if you are having a thing and you need volunteers, I can understand some of them are going to be late by a few months, and some of them early. Doesn't make that much of a difference. We already have the trust, we wanted to know if they are truly returning and perhaps two months isn't enough on its own but three noms are worth a month each and the willingness to submit to RFA is worth a couple more. So, that makes up for everything in my advanced mathematics. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Welcome back Leijurv (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, certainly. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 31) Support I love Jackmcbarn's boldness and bias for action, especially in technical areas. – SD0001  (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 32) Support So what harm is done if he doesn't stick around? None that I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 33) Support  Salvio 11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Trustworthy former admin. --Enos733 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 35) Support – Thought he was one. 😉 Kurtis (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 36) Support- I simply do not care about periods of absence, and prior record as an admin is perfectly fine. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. The candidate has committed to stick around (Q5), and is open to recall (Q6). Provided he honours his commitments, this removed any concern that he will just grab the rights and leave again quickly, and given his strong record as a former admin, no reason not to support. Good luck. --Dps04 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 38) Mostly per Usedtobecool. Adminning isn't rocket science, and hasn't really changed that much since 2015. What we should really be worried about is having the wrong attitude once he gets the tools (we have prior evidence this is not a problem), or that he's just regaining this as a trophy (which 2 months of solid work is more than enough to dispel).  If he approaches this with the humility to know that he might be a bit rusty in a few areas, he'll be fine.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. The extended break doesn't concern me. I know many in the oppose section are suggesting he reapply in six or 12 months, but to me that just seems arbitrary. He is either up to snuff or not, and there is no indication he is not. -- Calidum  16:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Given that the most-cited concern in the oppose section is the short time since the candidate's break, I think that even if this RFA were to fail, a third one 4 months later would easily succeed. Then the question is not really whether Jackmcbarn should get the mop, but when. I see no reason to expect problems if we give them now.  PJvanMill ) talk ( 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 41) SupporT No concerns, was an admin. Eatcha 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 42) Support I have thought about this one for a while (pretty much since since the start day of the RfA). Honestly, if this editor gets the tools and then is a problem, we have a process to deal with troublesome admins. Yes the bar can be often high and generally needs previous discussion, but we shouldn't turn away a former admin which had their tools removed due to inactivity because their only problem is their long inactivity. Yes, editing hiatuses which are long do lead to a user not being up to date on relevant policies, guidelines etc. However, I trust that they have got up to speed with how Wikipedia has changed, that they won't rush into doing admin tasks, and will also listen to editors concerns / feedback if they make mistakes. I understand that if a new user came here with the same level of activity and the good record (minus the admin stuff) that this user has, I would say "come back later". But this isn't a new user, this user has been shown to be trustworthy enough to use the tools previously, they have been editing (from what I can see) without major issue for 3 months since their break, and have the support of several editors / admins I trust. This to me is enough to show that they are still trustworthy and by extension will use the tools to the benefit of the community. Therefore, per my rule of thumb [i]f I can trust that a candidate will use the tools to the benefit of the community, then I will support. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 43) Support welcome back Vexations (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Since this editor was an admin before, and has already gained community trust, I personally see no reason for not supporting. <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. I see no problems here. BD2412  T 04:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 46) Support. No problems present. Pamzeis (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 47) Support Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 48) Support He has proven that he can be trusted with the mop, and I can attest to his technical skills, having worked with him on several templates and Lua modules. It has always been a pleasure to work with him. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 49) Support per Usedtobecool &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 50) Support per the nominator. I wish you all the best and good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. This is a former admin we're talking about; so the already ridiculous notion of someone having to demonstrate they will be active (when what really matters is being a net positive admin) is even more so. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. Welcome back. Jaredroach (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 54) Support - Good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 55) Support per trusted MusikAnimal and co-nominators. It appears candidate can be trusted as well. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 56) Support Welcome back and thanks for volunteering once again. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 23:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 57) Support - trustworthy candidate. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 02:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 58) Support. I supported his first RFA. He did not leave under a cloud and commenters on his first tenure attest to his trustworthiness, technical skill and good interactions. Under these circumstances, I am sure he will take care to catch up on developments and changes in the interim. I actually assume, given his previous record, he has done so to the extent necessary already. I do understand the feeling that he should edit for some additional time to be sure he is caught up (though not to demonstrate that as a volunteer he will stick around). I don't think that is necessary here since his prior record and current trustworthiness has not been brought into issue. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 59) Support as per other experienced users and admins attesting to fact that the candidate has shown themselves previously to be competent and capable of handling admin tools. Roller26 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 60) Support: no temperament issues that I can say and perfectly trustworthy to be competent and responsible with the tools. I'm not concerned by inactivity; if anything, we need a wider diversity of lifestyles among our editors because our (unavoidable) bias towards people with huge amounts of free time has its disadvantages. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 61) Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. That about says it all.  --rogerd (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 62) Support Prior admin that can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 63) Support They can be trusted with the tools.  Yes, they'd need a few months more of recent experience if they weren't a former admin. So? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 64) Support, rather weakly, and based almost entirely on my respect for the judgement of the candidate's nominators and strong supporters. A candidate with this little recent track record should not really be at RfA, but I cannot bring myself to oppose them. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 65) Support. Fully qualified candidate and I have no qualms about his resuming his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 66) Support. I am just a normal editor, but I have interacted with Wikipedia user "Jackmcbarn" recently and he has been cordial and helpful each time. In the last few days I have also witnessed him editing warmly, so I think he knows what he's doing, as he did ere. { $$\mathbb{JPG}$$ }  03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 67) Support no strong reason to oppose. Being inactive for a long period can be a problem if there's no tolerance for mistakes, but this is Wikipedia, most forms of damage can be easily reverted. If Jackmcbarn is willing to revert their own errors and learn in the process, I don't see why not. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 68) Support Why not. Qualified to resume admin responsibilities. Conlinp (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 69) Support... No big deal, especially after procedural de-admin. Jack, based on your user boxes, I'm not convinced we aren't the same human being different bodies. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 70) Support Megan☺️   Talk to the monster  07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 71) Support I appreciate Boing's point. The community has correctly (in my ever-humble opinion) determined that those who have stepped away for a lengthy period should be re-reviewed before getting the tools back.  That is what we're doing here.  I'm on the support side because the candidate does have a significant length of history here, break or no break, and we can easily judge who they are as an editor and administrator.  Sure things have changed since 2015, some for better, some not, yet at least 95% of adminning (made-up word) remains the same.  The pillars haven't changed.  There are tweaks to policies.  The candidate's history give me the impression they will be able to (if they haven't already) become current readily, and will take criticism/instruction on board without rancor if errors are made.  They have clearly been a net positive to the project, and there is no indication I can find, whatsoever, that they would be otherwise if they had the tools back.     78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 72) Support Ultimately, this user proved through their prior admin stint that they can be trusted with the tools. If they make five admin actions, and then disappear again, we gain five admin actions, and lose nothing. Harrias  talk 14:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 73) Support.--- FitIndia  Talk Admin on Commons 19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 74) Support. Meets my criteria. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 75) Support -- made more edits in the time period since their return than I have. No reason for me to say no. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 76) Stephen 02:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 77) Support gaps in activity are no big deal. W 42  04:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 78) Support per nom Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 79) Support User has shown they can be trusted with the tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdNg07 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 80) SupportA former admin is very likely to remember the rules with 3 year admin experience.Acidic Carbon (Corrode)  (Corrosive liquid) 13:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 81) Support The oppose arguments are unpersuasive. Experience counts, even if it is not recent. Vadder (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 82) Support There is no reason at all in my mind to assume that Jackmcbarn may misusse the tools. The answers about the new commitment to the project seem genuine. Granting the buttons to me is clearly a net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 83) Support On principle I would have preferred waiting six months before asking for the tools back. But it's not a big deal. No real concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 84) Support I have no concerns with returning the tools to Jack. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 85) Support. No actually tangible concerns regarding the long break from Wikipedia, and still seems very suitable. ~ mazca  talk 00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 86) Support. I am unconvinced by the opposers. Nobody seems to have pointed out any major lapse in judgement, snafus or controversies while this candidate was an admin. To me, that demonstrates sound judgement. Policies may and can change, but as long as this candidate updates him/herself with the latest revisions, then I have no concern re-promoting him to be an admin. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 02:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 87) Strong support I recall being impressed with his fine work and sound judgment as an admin in years past, and have every confidence that he will make an excellent admin again.  JGHowes   talk  03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 88) Support He is a core technical person. Nalbariantalk 04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 89) Support I had some reservations after reading through some of the opposes below, but most of those reservations were alleviated after reading Cullen328's note at the end of the general comments below. I trust that the candidate will wade back into administrative duties carefully. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 90) Support - Has already shown they can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back! the wub "?!"  10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 91) Support It may be true that many things have changed, but I trust that he can exercise proper judgment. <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 12:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 92) Support I have not encountered the candidate before, but based on his contribs, he could be entrusted again with the tools. Welcome back. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 93) Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 94) Support. He's even more experienced than when he was appointed admin in 2014. I don't think a three-year absence should count against him. Maproom (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 95) Support. He's been an admin before without apparent difficulty.  While we certainly need admins in high-conflict areas, it does not follow that admins who are unwilling to go there are of no use to the project—we also need admins doing uncontroversial grunt work. Steve Smith (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose only 2 articles started over a seven year period with roughly 30k total edits. Candidate has a high delete !voting at AfD. The answer in #3 is also a reason to oppose I've generally tried to stay away from the conflict-heavy/stressful areas of editing We need admins to be in those areas - or how else can they protect the content creators? So based on by belief that candidate will not be active in protecting content creators and protecting content I have to oppose. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , You've incessantly made the point of "protecting the content creators" at several rfas. Can you apprise us who are these hounds which are so readily waiting to pounce on the content creators? Are the editors who cross a certain threshold of delete !votes, out to get the "content creators"? - hako9 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What Lightburst actually means is "I want admins who will take my side when I am inevitably hauled back to ANI for repeated personal attacks at AfD." --JBL (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is perfectly reasonable for Lightburst to seek to counteract perceived deletionism among current admins by casting single vote at RFA solely based AFD voting records and article creation. As long as Lightburst is consistent about it and doesn't make it personal (which ). &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose after a 3-year absence, the candidate has only been back for two months. I like what I'm seeing so far, but in my humble opinion this request is premature. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's what I thought when this request was at BN. I've been impressed with what I've seen since then, if that helps you at all. – bradv  🍁  21:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. While the candidate's recent logs are promising, after such a long break, they are pretty much a two/three-month-old account. I understand the support from those who had the opportunity to work with him in the past, but without such an opportunity it is hard to offer my support. I would rather have some more assurance that the candidate will continue to be active and as helpful as they were in the past. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – ~5000 edits to main space does not indicate the user is ready to be an admin. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have many admins who benefit the encyclopaedia greatly without content being their main focus. Jack is responsible for quite a lot of stuff Wikipedia takes for granted, either directly or via tools that helped others build stuff, from pages of Gerrit contribs, to significant contribs to modules like protection banners. We've a lack of technical admins in many of these areas anyway, as you will recall from our experiences trying to get edits to Main page image synced. I've only seen one admin regularly process FPERs in these areas, which is a problem. Further, getting EFMs to process changes is quite the battle, so one more would be a great help. More technical admins are a boon to the smooth running of the encyclopaedia, and Jack would be an especially competent one at that, and one that has held the tools before. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The number of deletions in the logs from their previous tenure does not indicate to me they will stay on the technical side. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Nearly inactive for 5 years (not just three as implied in the noms), and only returned seven weeks ago. This does not fill me with confidence. Plus a lot has changed in those 5 years, including administrative protocols. Please return in six or twelve months and try again. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. A 3.5 year absence, and very little in the year or so prior to that, over a period in which quite a bit has changed? The "losing the bit due to inactivity" thing is not reversed just by showing up again, and I'd want to see a lot more than seven weeks of recent contributions before I could consider supporting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Very little content work, only recently back after lengthy inactivity.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Sorry, but I can't support somebody who has literally been back for seven weeks after years of absence. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment was maybe a bit rude, so I have toned it down. Sorry about that. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per Wehwalt.--Catlemur (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It's hard to believe that an editor can come back after a five year absence and immediately go back to proper admin function. A lot has changed on the Wiki since 2015 and I believe that it is best that an admin candidate, even one with some previous experience, should be active on-wiki for at least six contiguous months before the community can be reliably assured of their function and dedication.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Processes have changed a bit since they were active several years ago. I don't know that 7 weeks is long enough to get back into the swing of things.  Wait a few months, and then I'll reconsider. Hog Farm Bacon 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Based on the short period back. Nigej (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - echo what Hog Farm says really. Have a few months demonstrating your use and then come back to RFA, I'm sure you'll sail it. GiantSnowman 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Solid candidate, who earned my support back in 2014, but I think that we need to see the candidate's declared renewed commitment in action. To my mind this nomination has come too early, being only seven weeks or so since the return to editing - 12 months or so would be more appropriate. Keep up the good work. — sparklism hey! 08:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I respect those who feel seven weeks isn't enough time. However, twelve months would essentially give him no credit for his previous work as it is the generally accepted (though not universally) minimum experience for a new account. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add (and somewhat in response to 's vote) that I wasn't thinking of 12 months when I cast my oppose vote. Surely this will change from candidate to candidate, but for the specific case here, I'd say 5 months would make me hit support. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now with regret. Jack returned barely a few weeks ago after a nearly five-year absence. Since he was an admin, quite a few Wikipedia rules and policies have changed, new consensuses were developed, and the last thing I want from an admin is to learn about these new realities the hard way from ordinary editors after they are affected by his gaps in up-to-date knowledge. I will gladly support Jack if he edits without major issues for another 6 months. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)  Moving to neutral due to double voting
 * You !voted twice. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given this one is newer, I struck the old one. Kashmiri can change as need be. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, ! It's quite embarassing for me to have !voted support and then oppose on the same nomination. I guess it will only be fair towards the candidate if I stay neutral. Cheers, — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee. I don't really mind users taking breaks, but I don't find it unreasonable for them to demonstrate the same capabilities they left with for a longer period of time than a month. Nihlus  02:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per, and having read the entire resyoping request. Jackmcbarn is a name I'm familiar with and the time has passed so quickly that it's already  3+ years. No  malice aforethought - I did actually support (at some length) the first RfA, but I would expect to see at least a year's solid new work to at least  partially demonstrate that  they will be around to stay for a while. That  said, even at  the best  of times, the admin work was not particulary prolific, but I kinda accept  the common argument  that  everyone does what  they  can.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, given that a completely new account can pass RFA with only 12 months activity, and your own RFA criteria are 12 months editing or 6,000 manual edits in the last 6 months; does this mean you are valuing his former contributions and activity as an admin at zero in assessing this RFA?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, it does; in fact pretty much as a new user and I feel my opposition here also echoes the views of other respected and highly experienced voters in this section. Total edits 2144. (mainspace 557). Jack's actual admin stats are on the talk page. An absence of 4+ years if the tiny number of edits in 2016 and 2017 are included. Thus most of my criteria are not met. A huge amount of important new policies and systems affecting admin work, including notability and deletion criteria, have been introduced since then (I was largely  instrumental in  some of them). FWIW, I took a total Wikibreak in 2014 of only 3 months and when I returned to admin duties it was almost like starting anew.  Fortunately I had been a busy admin which helped somewhat. It does look as if this RfA will pass anyway, but  if it  were not to, it probably would next time and I  would of course support -  if my criteria are met (and they  are certainly not the most onerous to  be practiced by RfA voters). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just add a comment here, if I may. The community has decided that an admin's early contributions are insufficient to maintain their admin status once a certain period of inactivity has passed. If the community then wanted those early contributions to be considered as equal to recent contributions in a subsequent RfA, that would be negating the reason for the inactivity desysop in the first place. It seems clear to me that the community wants a re-RfA after an inactivity desysop to demonstrate afresh that a candidate is suitable for returning as an admin. Some credit will be given for past activity, certainly, but it follows from the community's activity requirements that it should not be given the same weighting as recent activity. I would have supported this RfA had I seen more substantial contributions since returning - but I think running for RfA again after just 7 weeks of new activity shows poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several different reasons for desysoping inactive admins. Concerns that the accounts might be compromised, concerns that the admin might have not kept up with changes, I don't see many people arguing that the former admin's contributions are of no value. More that we want to see enough edits to be sure it is the same person, that they still have the same values and faculties, and that they have got back up to speed. Arguably 24 hours is a tad short, clearly 7 weeks works for a lot of people.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I disagree that the candidate is fit for the admin position again after those years of absence from Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to their candidacy in the future, but they require more acclimatization to the modern website. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose WP:NOTNOW. They have only been editing for 8 weeks, prior to which they were away for 4 1/2 years. Regardless of their contributions before 2016, 8 weeks of active editing and ~550 mainspace edits in recent times is not enough to become an admin. <span style="color: #00b040; font-family: Segoe script, helvetica">Pi <span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #0040b0; font-family: Segoe script, helvetica">(Talk to me!)  04:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose – ~5000 edits to main space does not indicate the user is ready to be an admin.--Ron John (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. The candidate was an admin whose rights has lapsed due to inactivity. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And to add on, this oppose looks like a copy-and-paste of another user's opposition vote (right down the the dashes), which seems to suggest a lack of thought process involved by this particular oppose. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, sorry. Primarily per answer to Q4. The short period of active editing after a long absence is a concern also, but I'd be willing to overlook it in view of the candidate's prior solid record as an admin. However the almost total lack of content creation work bothers me much more. In all of his time here on Wikipedia the candidate managed to create only two articles, the DYK article Self-XSS mentioned in the answer to Q4, and a stub Transmission loss, that still has a single reference, to a primary source at that. I think the RfA needs to welcome candidates with diverse editing experiences. Technical specialists, like Jackmcbarn, should certainly be welcome. In terms of content creation, I personally don't insist on seeing any FAs, GAs or even DYKs, and I don't think there's any magic numbrer of articles created that would qualify as suffifient. Sometimes maybe 3 really great articles is enough. But I do want to see something substantive in terms of content creation. Some substantial solid evidence of proficiency in creating new content. Admins routinely delete the articles created by other users. The candidate's past admin actions are concentrated mainly in deletion area, and the answer to Q1 indicates that he intends to be active at CSD again as an admin. IMO, any editor wishing to be an admin has a moral obligation to learn what it's like to be on the other side of the delete button first, before requesting and getting the admin bit. Even if the editor in question has their main editing interests concentrated somewhere else. The main purpose of Wikipedia is creating new content. Everything else is just cleanup. I've heard all the stock cliche arguments that an admin only enforces the rules and policies and just needs to know what they mean to enforce them but doesn't need to properly empathize with the recipients of the admin actions. I don't accept those arguments. I'm pretty sure that this nomination will pass anyway, so perhaps this will turn out just a moral oppose, so to speak. I do encourage the candidate, once he does regain the admin bit, to invest some of his time in doing content creation work. Write a few new articles. Who knows, maybe you'll even like it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per User:Lightburst and User:Nsk92. The most dangerous combination in an admin is (a) lack of meaningful content creation, combined with (b) an undue tendency to support deletion the work of others. Here, Lightburst's concern is heightened by the candidate's prior failed AfD nominations: Mozid Mahmud,Trent Lockett, Kammron Taylor, Chris Babb, Ajin, and Adithya Srinivasan, Santali cinema, Iwan Ries and Co. Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Has only returned for seven weeks after a 5 year absence from Wikipedia. Concerns about excessive delete rationals at AfD and a reluctance to get involved in controversial environments.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Like Softlavender, I'm not sure how this will work out with such light participation in what I see as the main work of the project, content creation. I'd rather feel that admins are peers of creators than apart from them. But I guess we are about to find out how it goes. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I need to think about this a little, but my concern is strong enough that I am choosing to !vote neutral to add my thoughts to the discussion. Jackcmbarn clearly has experience with the tools, a solid temperament, and some very convincing nominators. My concern is with their activity levels. Between December 2016 and May 2020, they made something like 30 edits total, then they jumped back in starting this past May and have made something like 1.7k edits between then and now. My concern is basically this: do I believe Jackmcbarn has demonstrated that they're going to stick around and make use of the tools, or do I think that this latest burst of activity will rapidly taper back off? If Jack hadn't been an admin beforehand, I probably would be opposing and saying "come back after you've been active for most of a year to prove that you're going to stick around this time."  GeneralNotability (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a similar thought as you, so I thought you might appreciate some other perspectives on the question. The distinction I make is that, unlike first-time requests from recently returned editors, we can reasonably expect that Jack can do the job and do it well since he already has. With new sysops there's a learning curve, and the first few months we can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of problems. With recently returned editors, this learning curve might discourage them and drive them away again before they actually get good at it leaving us with a handful of admin actions that probably has a higher error rate than normal. Not the best deal for the encyclopedia. Since Jack has already been an admin, and not a bad one, I'm not concerned that the learning curve will be especially steep and so I'm not concerned we'll get many significant mistakes during the adjustment or that it will drive him away again. If Jack does become inactive again after taking a handful of admin actions, that's still a handful of admin actions that wouldn't have been done otherwise, and they'll probably be better than completely new administrators. To me that seems like a net positive, even if we'd prefer greater community involvement. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you, I do appreciate your thoughts and I understand where you're coming from. That's also why I made this !vote in the first place - I wanted to bring this up and get other editors' perspectives (and because my impression is that the "general comments" section isn't the best place to start a serious discussion on the merits of the candidate). Also, no objection to a move to the talk page if more people want to chime in. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the thoughful discussion. For me, adminship is a mark of trust to use advanced tools (somewhat facetiously, that they "won't break the wiki") not a job with a volume commitment or term contract. I don't think an admin needs to "stick around" to be/have been a good admin. If they do 100s of good admin actions a month for years, great. If they do 1 good admin action a year, that's good too. If they are active for a while and then disappear, that's great too, since while they were active, they helped us. I guess I'd balk where I had a reason to suspect (based on prior behaviour or recent editing) that the returning admin has the wrong attitude, the learning curve is likely to outweigh the total future cumulative contributions, or it just feels like hat collecting. But absent that, I don't care about commitment. Martinp (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose the argument could be made that a trustworthy and CLUE-ful candidate should at least perform sufficient administrative good so as to supersede the amount of volunteer time spent examining the candidate and !voting. How you could possibly measure that is well beyond my talents and abilities.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really the same issue as an expectation that people will be continuously active, but it is more reasonable. This is a volunteer site, we aren't paying admins to be admins, and it is no one's business but our own whether we are here when we are between contracts, when it is raining in the garden, or when the ex has the kids for the weekend. At one point there was a concern that quite a few admins and former admins appeared to have few or no admin actions, then we discovered that adminstats only has data since December 2004. So we were misjudging some of the first generation of admins. It is very very rare for a new admin to leave the project, so rare that it is not worth raising the issue in RFAs.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - considering the user was an admin before I joined, I have seen the name about a bit. However the user has been back for less than three months, and has less than 2,000 edits in the last five years. If they weren't a former admin - would we have such a good response here? If this waited another six months it would be easy to support, but if we allow admins to go inactive and quickly get the bit back when they return, what is the point of removing the mop when inactive at all? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per my RFA criteria. If this RFA fails, I'd probably be happy to support in a few months time. Iffy★Chat -- 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Based on response to Q#10, I am bordering on Oppose, but, will park my vote on Neutral till I really understand more. All editors are ambassadors of the Wikipedia community, and have a role to play in making Wikipedia a friendly and welcoming place for new / fresh editors. That said, the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new comers is more than just that of a regular editor. We need Administrators who can bring in that understanding, the empathy, and right attributes to make Wikipedia friendly for new comers. An Administrator is more than just an operator of Admin tools. Ktin (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. Yet another nominee who does not do content.  I am sure that the Village Pump is important to this crowd, and maybe there are deep implications to that activity.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral.  I'm happy for an admin of good standing to return after a break, and the rustiness should disappear.  Without discosing personal information it should have been obvious that the need of candidate to demonstrate they understood the reasons they prreviously dropped out of adminship and how they felt circumstances had changed and that they could now pick up the mop in a sustainable fashion.  The answer is well given given in Q#8, but I would have hoped the candidate had seen the need to explain this in nomination acceptance.  This is a sensitive area as in is grey region of private personal information that shouldn't need to be disclosed, and Q#8 might result in the candidate outing personal information.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Other editors have well articulated both prons and cons of this nomination. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  22:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Jackmcbarn, I'm going to sit in this neutral corner for a little bit because I have a suggestion for you: the ones opposing you on the grounds that you may not be very familiar anymore with today's admin work are probably disappointed with your answer to Q9. I don't know if the editor who asked it was thinking of 2FA and hacking--it was about the role admins play. Your first interest may not be adjudicating in DS areas or settling editorial disputes or closing controversial or difficult RfCs, but as an admin you will have the power to do so, and I am sure plenty of editors here are interested in your thoughts on those kinds of things that are within the purview of administrators. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you want the thoughts of others given current conventions around RFA could you ask a question so Jack may, if he wishes, give them to you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral In this case, we have plenty of evidence to know that Jackmcbarn is not a jerk, and certainly has the underlying ability to "have a clue". So the question in my mind is whether they currently "have a clue", due to the fairly significant changes in both policy and enactment over the past 4 years. I'm confident that the candidate, within 4 more months, would be at that level. The issue is that I'd rather they did not do that time span as an admin - of course they'll pick it up even quicker, but edge cases (including those they may not recognise as edge cases to check on) are likely to have a higher error rate, unnecessarily. As such I think neutrality is the best position. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I have concerns about the quick return to requesting admin status. Basically, this user is inexperienced if the calendar is restarted, but has old experience.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

 * I'm curious as to what specifically opposers feel has changed in administrative areas since Jackmcbarn was last active, that make him unsuitable now. He has said he will work in managing the edit filter, AIV and CSD. What is different now compared to three years ago? -- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a former admin that did not experience the case of Clarice Phelps or (not saying they are related) WP:FRAMGATE should be given back the tools. We would be setting them up for failure. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, why? Phelps was deleted at AFD and FRAM was about enwiki's right to volunteer control rather than foundation control. What about those incidents have changed the areas Jack has identified they'd work in? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting the below comment, perhaps I generalized too much. However, the candidate closed 89 AfDs during their last tenure which is why I mentioned Phelps. FRAMGATE, I think, indicates a shift in climate that we should see they can live with but I do not know enough about that to make it sticking point. If I could be assured the Jackmcbarn from 23 July 2015 will not quickly return, I would strike my oppose. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What we learned from "FRAMGATE" is that Fram behaved in a manner unbecoming of administrators and as a result lost their administrative privileges. You shouldn't suggest that the candidate has behaved in a similar manner without citing evidence of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. This is exactly what I was talking about in another RfA, a personal attack without cause just at the mere mention of a term. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are particularly critical to have experienced, IMO, to be re-trusted with some extra buttons. Important, sure, but we have prolific writings about each (FRAMBAN in particular contained roughly three Game of Thrones novels), nearly all of which was more heat than light.  They were covered in The Signpost, the Admin Newsletter, and are now scattered throughout our policies.  I'm sure you could come up with an insightful question or two to ask Jack about their understanding of those situations, but just as with the important Arb cases from a decade ago, it can all be learned.  Indeed, studying something removed and after the fact rather than being involved in-the-moment is not only more efficient, but possibly even more beneficial to understanding exactly what happened and how things flowed.  ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , literally hadn't heard of Clarice Phelps until this post. Guess I should relinguish my tools? Glen (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by this. Perhaps, the fact that you have never closed an AfD can explain this. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , read much? Glen (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just manually checked, again, every deletion you have made. I could not find a single deletion that cites an AfD. Why is that? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, I found one in 2009. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The obvious answer is that most of his deletions were speedy deletions. Have you found any that were not justified by policy? I remind you that most candidates for adminship have zero deletions that can be reviewed. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't focus on FRAMGATE. That was only in response to the question: What is different now compared to three years ago? and how significant things happened in the interim, in general. My main issue remains to be the candidates focus on deletions. The deletion of Bagri clan and the deletion of Rao Ramesh are two examples that I could find with my limited tools. I believe an AfD closer should double check the BEFORE and WP:ATD before trusting the judgement of a single !voter. ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For your review, I've restored Draft:Bagri clan and the edit history of Rao Ramesh prior to its re-creation. In the first example, there's not much there. In the second, the article was re-started six months later and still is live today, so you may have a point. But I'd not be inclined to deny a candidate based on a single case of poor judgment. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Bagri clan is notable. The fact that Bagar tract now exists is proof of that. there's not much there is immaterial. The sources existed. An admin should recognize that a much deeper search is need when dealing with less represented parts of the world. Alternatives to deletion should always be explored. The fact that Bagri language existed was a clue and could have served as R to related. Bagri was another indication that this is a notable subject, as the clan is listed right below the language. All these CLUEs were missed. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay... but I don't think a former admin that did not experience[...] WP:FRAMGATE should be given back the tools does suggest a certain weight. Regardless, I was really just saying that most "big things" are bumps along a 20-year history, and are generally well-/over-documented and not to difficult to grasp post-facto.  As an example, within the past three years, WP:ACPERM has been implemented, which is probably one of the most dramatic changes in the project's history, and is trivial to catch-up on and hardly ever discussed these days. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 00:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have struck the statement since you are not understanding that I do not even consider it as concerning in comparison to the users use of the delete tool. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose the point is that removing the rights of inactive admins is rather pointless if they automatically get them back if they become active again. Nigej (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's pointless at all as someone who has favored tightening of the resysop policy and who said Jack should not regain the tools. For me it's about knowing whether they have come back in a way that shows that they can still use the toolset well. The totality of Jack's work says to me "yes" - that is both the work since he's returned and the widely respected position he had before his absence. I can also think of a couple of examples of admin who returned after time away for whom the answer quickly became no and I can also imagine a candidate for whom we'd need a longer time period. But the community saying "It's not going to be automatic but we are going to respect your total track record" is a healthy place for us to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is whether a few weeks activity after a few years inactivity is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The bar is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Maybe a few weeks is all that's needed for a "ah, yeah, good to have ya back."  Jack has been prolific, wide-breathed, and quite helpful already. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 19:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the bar, we seem to wasting a lot of time on a pointless exercise. Could have given it to him after 1 edit. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't we just give all new approvals a 180 day trial period? I see far more positives than negatives in that proposal. How do we get it done? If we had such a trial period, we'd probably have less hesitancy and more admins. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And what would happen after the trial period? Another RFA? Does not seem too attractive for the candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Beyond the scope of this, but I think I wasn't clear. I meant it as "they're back they're back" not "show the minimum."  YMMV, but I think Jack has shown a return to activity. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 00:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously Jack can't read my mind, but when I asked about G5 I was specifically thinking of discussions like this and this and wondered what his take on all of it was. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack can do whatever he sets his mind to, and should not let anyone tell him any different. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Framgate controversy, as dramatic as it was for a month or two, has negligible impact on how administrators work day-to-day, especially those who strive to be civil. I learned an awful lot in my first seven weeks as an editor eleven years ago and was then fully prepared to be a productive content creator. I learned an awful lot in my first seven weeks as an administrator three years ago and was then fully prepared to be a useful administrator, I hope. I think that Jack is fully capable of refreshing himself in seven weeks, and resuming his work as an administrator after his long wikibreak. If there was any evidence that there were problems with his previous stint as an administrator or his current work as an editor, I might feel otherwise. But there isn't. Bring him back. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.