User talk:Isabelle Belato: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hey Isabelle, could you consider lowering the protection on Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska earlier? It is preventing me from responding to some replies to me, which is giving an unfair advantage to one side of the content debate. I think EC protection isn’t supposed to ever disadvantage one side even unintentionally.

If you’re concerned about people starting forum-style discussions, since it’s a contentious topic I could suggest just using your ability to give the people who do that timeouts when you see them. After all the protection won’t teach them anything and the problem will persist, they will just do it again later when it expires or on the next article for a racial political event, the only difference will be other potential admins will not see that they have a logged history of doing it. BlackVulcanX (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors (admins or otherwise) have a finite time to spend on the project, which is why this is considered one our most valuable resources. Reducing protection level would lead to lots of time being wasted on dealing with a considerably high amount of disruption by throwaway accounts and new editors. Due to this reason, I won’t be reducing the protection level at this time. If you still disagree with me, you are welcome to bring this matter to WP:AE, since protection was done under WP:AMPOL, so other editors and admins may weigh in. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revdeling this. Staying active!

Babysharkb☩ss2 ^{(Sympathy For The Devil)} 17:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fox 🙂 Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You had applied ECP to Talk:Zak Smith, and it’s been lowered to semi per a request over here. The requester stated that I have e-mailed the protecting admin, and they agreed that there appears to be no confirmed socking on the Talk page, and recommended that I request a protection decrease, but the section regarding requests for reduction has the text “Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page.” I didn’t see any discussion on your talkpage about this, and that page is such a trash heap (I was very surprised when I saw the protection level decrease), so I sort of just wanted to make sure everything was cricket, I suppose. All good? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what’s worth, what I said in full to that user was: As I noted in the article’s talk page, I protected it so that discussion could flow without disruption from non-EC accounts. While there appears to be no confirmed socking, I suspect either meatpuppetry or off-site canvassing is involved, which has been disrupting the RfC. You are welcome to request a protection decrease at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease. I think reducing the protection is a mistake, but I won’t wheel war over it. Courtesy ping to White Spider Shadow and Anachronist. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll raise it again to ECP if I see disruption on the talk page (I have a browser tab open to it), but so far there has been zero activity since the protection was downgraded to semi. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]