Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barras 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barras

Barras (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of Barras
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: Gordonrox24.

End date: 18:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, today, I am pleased to nominate Barras for adminship. He is a former administrator who has recently returned to activity after a break. Barras previously served as an admin on this wiki for about a decade, from 2009 to 2019, and it’s truly an honour to nominate someone with his level of experience.

During his previous tenure, Barras consistently demonstrated level-headed decision-making and a strong commitment to the project. I believe his return is a net positive for the wiki. Now that he has reacquainted himself with the processes and policies, I see no reason why he shouldn’t have access to the necessary tools to support the community more effectively. He is already contributing actively, particularly in patrolling new pages—an area where we are currently most in need of help. In our recent conversations, I’ve also updated him on the latest changes and developments. There is much more I could say, but I’ll keep it brief. Thank you for considering this nomination.--BRP ever 18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you very much for the nomination and the kind words, BRPever! I gladly accept your nomination. -Barras talk 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator.--BRP ever 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support happy to return :) Raayaan9911 18:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Hell yes! fr33kman 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support of course --M7 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm always delighted to see old admins return who used to be active here. Some things have changed, yes, but policies are mostly the same, especially compared to 2019. I think Barras, like Fr33kman, Griff, M7 etc, since returning has shown understanding of policy and a "need" for the tools since his return, and this thing is no biggie after all. Mistakes happen, and can always be corrected too, so long as they're not done en masse. Welcome back Barras! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just here to reaffirm my support. I have to ask those in the oppose section of this RfA, what is actually being achieved by prolonging this RfA? Just come back here in a couple weeks time and do this all over again? Let's have two RfAs for the sake of it? What about using the community's time wisely... In the case of Griff's RfA a few months back, they only had about a month's time editing before returning too, and as Fr33kman addressed below, same with Fr33kman after a break of 10 years. Neither of them received this level of opposition – in fact, most of the opponents we see here (BZPN, Cactusisme, Davey2010 and Raayaan9911) all found themselves supporting Griff's RfA despite only being back a month too (unless those 7 days difference truly make such a big difference?). Furthermore, on other wikis, adminship is often given back on request to former administrators who had their rights removed – here historically RfAs have simply been a formality. It's appearing as though if this RfA fails, our expectations for former administrators requesting rights again are inconsistent, as this situation is pretty much identical to other sysops regaining their tools. Some of the suggestions in the oppose section are very unusual in the context of RfAs:
    1. There is one suggestion that Barras somehow hasn't made his mind up about returning. He accepted losing the tools in 2019, came back a couple times since and didn't commit to anything then because he knew he didn't have the time. Being a former admin, I think he's quite familiar with the consequence of accepting an RfA, especially given the fact he hasn't gone back to the idea of the toolkit until now.
    2. The suggestion that somehow misuse or (looking below) primarily abuse(!) – if I am reading Steven1991's comments that something could go "seriously wrong" correctly! – may occur if we reelect Barras as an admin. He is a former steward and functionary on this wiki, coming back after less than 3 years of full inactivity, I'm very interested to learn about what something going "seriously wrong" could entail, as I think that is a very strong accusation to make against someone in good standing.
    On Fr33kman's 2nd RfA, I made the comment [Fr33kman] understands the changes to policy and still knows other admin policy very well, so waiting months just for the sake of box-ticking is pointless, in my view. - rereading it, it's a bit more blunt than I initially intended it to be, but it's truer than ever here with Barras too – especially with his answers to the questions – and so, indeed, prolonging an RfA a couple of weeks longer feels like box ticking than anything else, and some of the suggestions of what could occur if Barras are elected have been very much overblown. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure comparing this RfA to Griff's RfA is really fair.
    Griff's last edit before going inactive was 27/06/23, and they returned to activity on 29/11/24 (not counting the one minor edit made a couple days before), just over 500 days of inactivity.
    On the other hand, Barras' last edit before going inactive was 24/08/18, and they returned to activity on 24/05/25 (not counting two minor edits years apart), which is a gap of barely under 2.5K days.
    Drawing links to these two RfAs gives off "comparing rifles to RPGs" vibes, in the fact that the base concept of both is the same (Former sysops removed for inactivity requesting their mop back), but too many factors differ too much to be able to provide a satisfactory result that could be of realistic use.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it isn't identical, that's why I also compared it to Fr33kman's, in which the response was near-unanimous, despite the break actually being much longer, which is difficult to argue against. However, most of the comments mention the length of return as opposed to the length of the break at hand, so it's certainly applying different standards. I also do not believe that seven years warrants baseless accusations of potential abuse of tools that marks the justification for some of these oppose votes. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Ternera (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Barras' understanding of policy has remained robust, and his answers below have shown a good level of thoughtfulness re: how things have changed that I feel comfortable supporting. Hiàn 03:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I understand the hesitation of those who are opposing based on the time since his return; I also admit that requesting after only 20 days seems quick. However, a review of Barras' changes since he's returned show that he can help in areas of need where little policy or guideline changes have occurred such as QD and VIP. The fact that multiple admins who work in those areas are supporting this RFA gives extra credence to this request as they're more closely reviewing his actions and also know the support that is needed in those areas. I appreciate his reflections on the differences between 2018 and 2025 of Simple English Wikipedia and trust that when he is unsure of new protocol, he will seek support. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've personally been in this position and I think Barras will be fine. Personally, I waited until I was active for almost a year before asking for the tools back. That wasn't because I didn't think I knew how to use the tools. It was because I wasn't sure I'd be able to maintain activity. Once I proved that to myself, I was open again to the tools. It had nothing to do with my suitability for the tools. So while I very much appreciate the oppose position, it doesn't make Barras less capable to use the tools. He is one of the most capable people I've ever had the privilege to serve with< and I'm very happy to see him back. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. While I recognize Barras' past contributions and long-term admin experience (2009-2019), I believe that returning to adminship after such a long break requires a longer and more sustained period of re-acclimation. His recent activity, while energetic, began only on 24 May 2025, after over a year and four months of complete inactivity (last edit on 15 January 2023). That’s a significant gap in this project, where both community dynamics and policies may have changed. Although he’s made many edits since May 24, two weeks of activity is far too short to assess whether he’s truly re-acclimated to the project and its current conditions. BZPN (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I agree with BZPN. I further elaborated my reason for not supporting the RfD in this comment. Steven1991 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose While Barras contributed a lot in the past, I believe that admins should be elected based on current involvement. Things have changed over time, and we should carefully consider whether Barras is still the right fit for the role. Who knows, if they are going to go inactive in less than a year. I think after a few more weeks of contribution, you would be ready. --Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 00:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an inactivity policy that deals with this concern. If in 365 days he hasn't made an edit, we remove the tools. It's really easy. Honestly, admin isn't that special. The chance of inactivity a year from now isn't a reason to oppose an RFA.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per BZPN and Steven. I cannot in good conscience support a former admin who only returned 3 weeks ago and has only been editing for 3 weeks. Ignoring the one edit in 2023 and 2019; they last edited here in 2018... which was 7 years ago!, Ofcourse if it were 7 days, 7 weeks, or even 7 months ago then sure I wouldn't have any qualms .... but 7 years is a long time!. Anyway I want to see more than 3 weeks worth of work before I support any candidate on this website. As with any candidate my tenure preference is 1-3 years of solid editing which unfortunately this candidate fails at so as such I cannot support this nomination at this time, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 00:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things clear. When I returned after 11 years away this same community restored me to admin after just over a month of activity and elected to CU a few months later and I think I've done well especially in the areas of QDs, RfDs, blocks, user mediation and stopping edit wars. and checkuser activity. I have also authored multiple quidelines that are used daily. I think Barras was one of the best of us in the old days and there haven't been that many changes to community rules. In addition Barras has done research of the changes and had conversations about the changes. Just an FYI and not a complaint, regards, fr33kman 01:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be mistaken but, I also seem to recall that on enwiki a former admin can simply as a crat to reinstate their flag with no discussion. I don't think we need to do that but it shows how little a deal admin is and they don't worry about changes to the project there fr33kman 02:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Barras's past contribution from 2009 to 2018. After seven years of wikibreak, they required contribute much longer. Admin tools can be easily to misuse because it's powerful tool. I think Barras was former administrator right now. Raayaan9911 02:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He was former administrator. This oppose doesn't make sense. He was. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Question - What is your understanding of "the latest changes and developments" between 2018 and now based on your conversations with BRPever and your editing experiences in the last 20-ish days? CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over the past years, I've noticed quite a few changes across the Wikimedia projects including simple WP — though I'm sure there are still things I haven't fully explored yet. That said, many of the core principles and basic workflows have remained familiar, which I actually appreciate. Some of the newer features, like the ability to block accounts in a more nuanced and differentiated way (instead of full-on blocks), are steps in the right direction in my opinion. I'm also really curious to see how working with the new temporary accounts instead of IP addresses will play out in practice — it's a big shift, but it could bring real improvements to moderation and privacy. I'm also glad to see that there's now a global Universal Code of Conduct team in place. Having a consistent framework for respectful behavior across all projects is something I strongly support. One major change I've noticed is the shift in how we deal with certain types of content. For example, articles that would have previously been deleted quickly under WP:QD#A4 are now more often discussed through RfD. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of that change — I feel it slows things down — but I understand the reasoning behind it and I'm happy to follow the current consensus. Truth be told, I'm not exactly sure what kind of answer you're looking for from me — but since I've been active on several Wikimedia projects over time, I’ve made a point of checking in on major policy changes, even over on Meta. And of course, when I’m ever unsure whether something has changed, I know where to look. -Barras talk 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as much as I want to support you only returned to the wiki on the 24 May this year, less than a month ago, so I can't really support at this time.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I have a few questions for you regarding the recent situation of the content on simplewiki:
    Hello BZPN. Thanks for the questions. I've been into eduction for years now. Since mid 2023 the educational system is suffering from the AI generated stuff—it's most likely the same for our projects. Generated things became better in the last year, but now it's getting worse again. Despite the fact that generated content is usually too complex in language for this very project, it also includes wrong information and wrongly cited stuff. I currently see no good way to include such articles in an encyclopedia without serious review. Therefor, I'd strongly support the implementation of the policy.
    The project currently suffers from AI content. I currently try to keep up with the latest newly created articles, and I'm sure there are some generated articles there. Many such articles are easily detected, because they typically don't follow our manual of style. If they've been adapted correctly, it's often harder to find them. However, they usually still use rather complex language and they are missing reliable resources. I'd personally say we should only quick delete clear cases of AI usage, and everything else should go through RfD. Barras talk 08:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BZPN: While the length of activity is a good indicator, the better indicator is, in my opinion, the activity itself. Barras has patrolled a substantial number of edits—so much so that even if we take the stats of the past two years, he will probably still come out on top. His comments on RFDs have been consistently policy-based, and I think there is quite a lot of indication that he understands the role. I do understand your concern, however; I struggle to see any downside to having him as an admin. He has demonstrated his ability to learn and adapt (e.g., with A4), so I see no downside to this. Our inactivity policies are strict; I think we need to be equally lenient with users who return. Tools are just tools to help contribute better in the end.—BRP ever 22:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Abstain I agree with some users above. More time is needed for observation. I propose the RfA to be paused and reopened in half a year. Steven1991 (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is so much work on this side, what little time I have goes on making sure the processes don't stay stuck. Barring candidates with already demonstrated understanding of policies and processes just for the sake of box ticking makes no sense. Especially when the candidate has had the role in the past, and has understood the changes that occurred in his absence.-- BRP ever 17:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a candidate is indeed competent, what makes it unreasonable for them to wait for show their competence for a longer period and convince community members who are not familiar with them that they are suitable for regaining the admin tools? I don’t think that rushing someone back into power is appropriate. If serious issues arise as a result of this, it would cost the community a lot of time to address it, which could be stressful and counter-productive. You may not agree with it, but it is in my view that minimising the chance of admin tool abuse is of utmost importance to the platform’s healthy operation. Steven1991 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure what more a longer wait would achieve, especially when there’s no indication of risk. Holding back someone who could help in areas where we’re currently lacking feels counterproductive. There are already many policies governing adminship, so I don’t see this as a risky move.
    I understand your concern, and I agree that preventing misuse of admin tools is important. However, in this case, he has consistently made substantial, policy-based contributions. The principle of “anyone can edit” comes with its own risks, yet we trust people. Here, we have someone with a decade of admin experience—and even longer editing experience—who has demonstrated nothing but merit in thousands of edits since his return. Thanks, BRP ever 18:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot agree with this. It is unreasonable to rush someone back into power when they have resumed active editing for less than a month following a long hiatus. The past is the past, while individuals could change. There is no guarantee that nothing could go seriously wrong with such hurried power restoration. I would be more open to supporting it if this request were made much later. Steven1991 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven1991, I believe that being sysop is not "power", but a rather a service. The only tools that sysops get on-wiki are intended only as a way to safeguard the project and valid contributors from vandalism, spambots and so on. --M7 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A sysop can ban any users at a whim, while a ban cannot be lifted by other sysops without consulting the one having imposed the ban. How is that not power? Are we having a "different" understanding of power? Steven1991 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven1991: I think you're confusing bans and indefinite blocks. A sysop cannot ban at a whim. Bans are done by community consensus, after a discussion open to the whole community.
A sysop can block a user, indefinitely or otherwise, at any time without consulting anyone else. That happens a lot as a result of reports at WP:VIP. Any sysop can also unblock that user. Before unblocking, we often consult the sysop who made the block just to get their input if we want to understand their reasoning or something, but it's not required. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bans are community decisions. No single admin can impose a ban. Admins can impose blocks, and those blocks can be appealed by users through the unblock process. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven1991, sysop or higher right holders abusing their functions are removed. There is a detailed Guide to appealing blocks that I encourage you to read. Please note also that the Wikimedia Projects have adopted a global baseline of acceptable behavior that explicitly sanctions Harassment, abuse of power, privilege, or influence even before Content vandalism and abuse of the projects. --M7 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FusionSub: The sole reason given for oppose seems to be the length since return to activity, which is comparable to Griff and Fr33kman (if I recall, his inactivity was quite long too). I don't think it is an invalid comparison to make considering lack of other factors mentioned. During the course of this RFA (in answers) and in thousands of edits/logs since his return, Barras has demonstrated his ability to make correct decisions. This was the reason why I encouraged Barras to run since community seem quite welcoming to admin who left in good standing. I have to say I am quite disappointed at how the worst case that could happen is assumed (not by you ofc) for someone who has served community for several years. I don't think we ever had a concern with returning admin 'abusing' the tools like mentioned. A bit disappointed at myself for recommending it since I thought community would choose obvious good over making speculations on how things could go wrong. But my support stays unwavering since I believe this is for the good of community.--BRP ever 20:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Barras_2&oldid=10331108"