Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2

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)[reply]

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

• Links for Jackmcbarn: Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• 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)[reply]
2. Support as co-nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Trustworthy former admin who has a need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support welcome back, Cabayi (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support as co-nominator. Legoktm (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support +2 and former admin, can be trusted with the tools, valid use case --DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Clear support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support – an excellent technical admin with a proven track record. Welcome back. – bradv🍁 21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. Unequivocal. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Welcome back stwalkerster (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. bibliomaniac15 21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. CThomas³ (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, fully agree with Bibliomaniac15. —Kusma (t·c) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike duplicate vote, this is the earlier one. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support. An easy call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16. 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)[reply]
17. Welcome back — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support was capable and competent previously. Nick (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20. 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)[reply]
21. Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support No concerns, clear since his return that he knows what he's doing. P-K3 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
23. I'm partial to editProtectedHelper. Nardog (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
24. 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
25. 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)[reply
    ]
26. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
27. support lets hand the mop back to them. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
28. 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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
29. 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)[reply]
30. Support The m o p shall be awarded to this fine wikipedian. Arsonxists (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
31. 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)[reply]
32. 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)[reply]
33. 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)[reply]
34. Support Tenure is a bit short, but I'm not seeing any red flags. Just try not to delete the main page :) -FASTILY 00:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
35. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
36. 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)[reply]
37. Support, for basically the same reasons I supported the candidate's first RfA. Welcome back! Miniapolis 02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support has proven his competency as an administrator in his previous stint. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
40. 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)[reply]
41. Support backed by evidence of past success. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I have no concerns and echo the comments of 28bytes, Mz7, and TNT. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Solid technical contributions. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
44. 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)[reply]
45. Welcome back GirthSummit _(blether) 05:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
46. Absolutely, with none of the doubt i expressed last time; the candidate has proven himself easily; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Already proven, well trusted by the community, this RfA is a no brainer if ever I saw one!
    ed. ^put'r there 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Support with thanks for returning to service. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support – was a good admin before, no reason to think this won't be the case the second time around. Graham87 07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
50. 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. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support — Well that's an easy one! everything I would want an admin to be. Just an added bonus that they previously were one. @
    MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Support Indeedy, why not. scope_creep^Talk 08:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
53. Overdue ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support has proven they can be trusted. Glen (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support per the nominator :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @MusikAnimal: Are you sure the nominator is someone you can trust? I'm pretty sure they're in the WP:Cabal. ^[FBDB] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

56. 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)[reply]
57. Support — I feel comfortable with supporting. Deb (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
58. 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)[reply]
59. Support — He was previously trusted with the tools and a positive contributor with them. I see no reason to think anything has changed. Goodnightmush^Talk 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
60. 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)[reply]
61. per noms – 
    talk · edits 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
62. 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. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
63. 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)[reply]
64. Support again, as I did in your first RfA. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
65. 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)[reply]
66. 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)[reply]
67. Support - Obviously an experienced admin, The editing hiatus isn't a concern for me, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - I've got some WD40 for the rust - oh, and see my trial period proposal below. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - barring no other issues, will most likely be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
70. 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)[reply]
71. Support. If people want to help out, let them help out. Haukur (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
72. Easy support. I've needed his hand once with a user. No issues with Jack returning as mop tender. Nightfury 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
73. 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)[reply
    ]
74. Has done good work in the past; not under a cloud; is open to recall, so any error on our part is correctable.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
75. 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
76. 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)[reply]
77. Support. No concerns; candidate answers show willingness to update himself on latest policy. Welcome back. Deryck C. 22:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
78. 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)[reply]
79. I looked at the old RFA, and see no red flags. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support – Should be a net positive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
82. 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)[reply]
83. 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)[reply]
84. Support Welcome back Leijurv (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support, certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support I love Jackmcbarn's boldness and bias for action, especially in technical areas. – SD0001 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
87. 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)[reply]
88. Support Salvio 11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Trustworthy former admin. --Enos733 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support – Thought he was one. 😉 Kurtis ^(talk) 11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support- I simply do not care about periods of absence, and prior record as an admin is perfectly fine. Reyk _YO! 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
92. 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)[reply]
93. 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)[reply]
94. 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)[reply
    ]
95. 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)[reply]
96. SupporT No concerns , was an admin. Eatcha 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
97. 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
    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 Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
98. Support welcome back Vexations (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Since this editor was an admin before, and has already gained community trust, I personally see no reason for not supporting. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. I see no problems here. BD2412 T 04:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. No problems present. Pamzeis (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
103. 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support per Usedtobecool ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support per the nominator. I wish you all the best and good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
107. 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)[reply]
108. Support. Welcome back. Jaredroach (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - Good candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support per trusted MusikAnimal and co-nominators. It appears candidate can be trusted as well. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Welcome back and thanks for volunteering once again. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - trustworthy candidate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
113. 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)[reply]
114. 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)[reply]
115. 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)[reply]
116. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. That about says it all. --rogerd (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support Prior admin that can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
118. 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?
     π, ν) 22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
     ]
119. 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)[reply]
120. Support. Fully qualified candidate and I have no qualms about his resuming his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
121. 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. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
122. 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)[reply]
123. Support Why not. Qualified to resume admin responsibilities. Conlinp (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
124. 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)[reply]
125. Support Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
126. 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)[reply]
127. 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)[reply]
128. Support.--- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. Meets my criteria. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
130. 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)[reply]
131. Stephen 02:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support gaps in activity are no big deal. W42 04:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support per nom Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
134. 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)[reply]
135. 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)[reply]
136. Support The oppose arguments are unpersuasive. Experience counts, even if it is not recent. Vadder (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
137. 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)[reply]
138. 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)[reply]
139. Support I have no concerns with returning the tools to Jack. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. No actually tangible concerns regarding the long break from Wikipedia, and still seems very suitable. ~ mazca ^talk 00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
141. 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
142. 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)[reply]
143. Support He is a core technical person. Nalbarian^talk 04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
144. 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)[reply]
145. Support - Has already shown they can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back! the wub "?!" 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support It may be true that many things have changed, but I trust that he can exercise proper judgment. Jianhui67 ^T★C 12:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
147. 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)[reply
     ]
148. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
149. 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)[reply]
150. 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)[reply]