Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato

Isabelle Belato

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (110/0/0); Scheduled to end 21:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) – It's my absolute pleasure to present to you ‎Isabelle Belato for consideration for adminship. In 2020 all of a sudden their name started appearing all over my watchlist given our mutual interest in children's literature. I quickly learned that they were a highly capable editor, no doubt due to their work on Portuguese Wikipedia where they'd edited for a number of years before switching focus to English. Part of what made them so good, so fast, was not just their previous wiki experience, but their being unafraid to ask good questions to learn and grow combined with a warm and collaborative disposition. They have used their skill to improve numerous articles, including bringing four up to Good Article.

Over the past year I have seen them grow into an incredibly respected closer of discussions doing an excellent job of closing high profile and difficult discussions, including most recently the 2022 ACE RfC. I have had my eye on Isabelle as a future admin for quite some time and I am thrilled to be here today asking you to join me today in supporting them. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm thrilled to be co-nominating an editor who exemplifies what being here is all about — Isabelle has proven their competence both in policy (as Barkeep49 alludes to above) and in the curation of content (to which their GA Julián Is a Mermaid speaks clearly).

Isabelle has kept away from editing content in the more contentious areas of Wikipedia (and this is no bad thing!), yet has shown an ability to keep cool and answer queries civilly in the rare cases where discussions had got heated.

These qualities, along with their need for the tools to more effectively maintain our content, bring me to ask just one final question — will you join us in supporting this wholly qualified candidate for adminship? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm happy to accept Barkeep's and TNT's nomination, and thank both of them for their kind words. I have never edited for pay. I never edited Wikipedia before creating this account, Before creating this account, I edited with a different one (see answer to question 5 below). but I have a disclosed alternate account which I use to edit while on public networks. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 21:03, 7 October 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: As someone who spends a lot of time patrolling recent changes, the tools would be helpful in preventing vandalism, as well as working on revdel'ing edit revisions and summaries when necessary. Most importantly, I spend a lot of time closing discussions, including more complex and contentious ones, and while non-admin closing is a thing, some can only be closed by vetted members of the community, either due to technical reasons (bans/blocks), or due to perception (eg.: the recent Fox News RfC). As an administrator, it would show the community trusts my ability in assessing and closing these discussions. I'd also help in other areas where administrators might be needed, and offer assistance when I could be helpful.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: When it comes to content editions, I'm very proud of all the articles I've created, especially those about queer people and their works, as writing these articles is a way to learn about them. A specific article would be The Lodger, which I stumbled upon one day and decided to improve when I learned it was one of the foundational works on the myth of Jack the Ripper. I also loved writing about Scary Stories for Young Foxes, which I ended up reading during my research and managed to improve it to GA status. Outside of mainspace, I've recently closed the "Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE" RfC. A somewhat long discussion that shows consensus is not only about whether editors agree or disagree with the options offered in the opening statement, but also what is being discussed by participants.

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: The content areas I edit are usually very calm, but I've participated in some stressful discussions here and there. While I always try my best to keep my calm and oftentimes will avoid replying when I know it won't help advance the discussion, I remember being unnecessarily rude to a user in a discussion over userboxes. I apologized to them after the fact and haven't had any altercations like that with any other users, to the best of my knowledge.

---

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.

Optional question from OrgoneBox

4. Would you agree to participate in some form of recall process if the community felt it necessary to pursue it?

A: I'm not sure if this will answer your question satisfactorily, but I'd be "willing to stand for 're-confirmation' of adminship" if any number of editors I look up to and respect asked for such in my talk page.

Optional question from Genericusername57

5. Did you use another account to edit the Portuguese Wikipedia between 2007 and 2009?

A: As far as I remember, I've only ever edited with this account, though I did edit under a different username for a lot of my tenure in the Portuguese Wikipedia until I asked for the account to be renamed in 2020.

I'm striking my original answer to this question since I was made aware that I, indeed, edited the Portuguese Wikipedia under a different account at that time period. While I didn't remember its existence, I can confirm it was mine. At some point in early 2009 I decided to abandon it and utilize a different account, which is the one I have now (though it went through a rename request in 2020). I apologize for this lapse of memory.

Optional question from LindsayH

6. What do you consider the most important of our priciples ~ pillars & PAGs?

A: To me the most important concept has always been neutrality. While I do have strong opinions and views on a variety of topics, as all people do, I've always done my best to not let that influence my editing of Wikipedia, especially in content space, and obviously when closing discussions. While I don't think some people understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia terms, this is what has allowed us, as a community, to cover a huge range of subjects, contentious or not, while also respecting reliability and our policy on BLP.

Optional question from Bilorv

7. Your signature reads "Isabelle", but doesn't make clear your full username, which can confuse newcomers. Would you consider changing it?

A: Thanks for the question, Bilorv. I've been reading the discussion below and I can see how not having one's full username in their signature could become an issue at times. I appreciate all those who participated in it, but I think Gusfriend makes a good point about newcomers possibly having issues with this (or even mobile users, as some mentioned), even if it's a small one. Since there is absolutely no cost to me in changing my signature to ensure these kinds of issues don't happen, I went ahead and changed it.

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

8. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?

A: Even before moving to the English Wikipedia I used to mentor new users and help at the Portuguese Wikipedia's equivalent to the Help Desk. Here, not only did I continue this work, I was also an early participant of the mentorship system introduced by the Growth Team. I've always tried my best to inform greenhorns about how to edit, create articles, where to go to find more information on what they are seeking, or how to proceed during a dispute. I don't see that changing if I were to become an administrator. I hope that answers your question.

Optional question from GeoffreyT2000

9. Will you be closing controversial AfDs or requested moves? I see that the last (and so far, only) AfD you have closed was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Imaginary Beings.

A: While I do intend on helping around with the various administrative tasks, I imagine not at first, no. Just as with any other activity I've done on Wikipedia, I will start by learning the tools and, as I grow more confident and used to them, will participate in these tasks to help keep the queues clear or as the need arises.

Optional question from 78.26

10. You state in Q1 that access to revdelete is one of the primary reasons for requesting the toolset. How or why would you judge something should be hidden from readers and editors as opposed to just reverting?

A: Most of the time, obvious vandalism need only be reverted and reported, but every so often the edit should be hidden from public records, usually because it violates our WP:BLP policy, as the edit contains offensive material or other kinds of inappropriate content (in less common occasions, RD#2 is also required outside of the mainspace to remove "grossly insulting" content, as it happened in this very RfA). I take the BLP policy very seriously, and I've requested deletion under criteria #2 a number of times at the IRC channel whenever I felt it was needed, usually when it involves libelous, unsourced/poorly sourced statements or extremely offensive and disparaging language. Sometimes I'll also request RD under criteria #1, for obvious copyright violation. There are also cases where information needs to be hidden due to WP:OUTING reasons, in which case a full revert is not often needed, but the relevant information needs to be removed and the original revision hidden before being WP:OS'ed (though I don't believe I've ever needed to request this).

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

11. One of your noms mentioned that you switched from mainly editing the Portuguese Wikipedia to mainly editing the English Wikipedia. Out of curiosity, what factors played a role in your decision to switch your main wiki?

A: Thanks for the question, and I will try to be short as there isn't much benefit in dwelling in the past. While I was very content in simply creating new articles or translating the ones from the English Wikipedia, I became more involved in the internal parts of the project, but was eventually alienated by the community due to negative experiences with some editors, both off-Wikipedia, in their official Telegram group, and on-Wikipedia. As I interacted with the more respected and older users of the community, the more I became disillusioned, and, during the discussion that led to IP banning, I was disparaged, so I took that as my cue to leave.

Optional question from Saturnrises

12. Can a user remove a CSD tag from a page he has created?

A: Yes and no. The WP:CSD policy is quite clear that, for most cases, the page's creator can't remove the tag, and should instead use the talk page to explain why they disagree with it. It also explains that, for some specific criterias, the creator may remove them, either because they were the ones who requested the deletion, or because they deal with more advanced areas (ie. dabs, categories), where the creator is oftentimes an experienced and trusted user.

Discussion

• Links for Isabelle Belato: Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Isabelle Belato can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
2. I do not see any issues, have seen the user around.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Competent, solid experience, could be useful with the tools, were on my radar as a possible candidate. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
4. I almost never vote this early in an RfA but this one was easy. One of the most clueful and accurate recent changes patrollers about at the moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
5. As with HJ Mitchell, this support vote is easy for me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
7. Has experience and clue, honestly thought they had the bit already. Madeline (part of me) 21:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
8. One of the most thoughtful, clueful editors I have had the pleasure of interacting with. Even when we've disagreed, I have found them to approach things from a position of caring deeply about the encyclopedia and the community that creates it, and to express their disagreement civilly and courteously. I wish we could have another 100 admins like Isabelle; one is a good start. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
9. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
10. Support – Tamzin said it best. I believe Isabelle's calm and collected demeanor will be an asset to the admin corps. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
11. An impressive closure at WP:ACERFC2022. Ovinus (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
12. I've had encounters with Isabelle before and like Maddy above, I thought they were already an admin. But clearly no. I haven't had any too recent interactions with them however from past experience I'd say they are deserving of the tools. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
13. Support - no previous dealings with this editor, but they certainly seem an ideal candidate from what I can see. Best of luck! Patient Zero^talk 22:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
14. Could use the tools and I trust them to do so properly. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 22:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
15. Support – a well-qualified candidate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
16. Support – easy to support: competent and sensible. DBaK (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
17. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
18. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
19. No issues. Certainly seems like a net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
20. Trust the nominators and their work closing the ACE RfC was great, so full support from me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
21. Support, why not? Sea Cow (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
22. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
23. Support With two nominators I respect and no negative interactions with Isabelle, I support this nomination. We need more admins, especially those who are calm under pressure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
24. — Trey Maturin has spoken 00:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
25. Support – I've seen Isabelle around and they've been really helpful. Also trust the two nominators. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
26. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 00:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
27. Support I have seen them around, and I like their content creation. They will be an excellent administrator. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
28. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
29. Support Always nice to see an editor with a wide range of good contributions step up. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
30. Support The nominators impart immediate trust on my part. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
31. Support Only comparatively recently have I seen Isabelle around, more specifically as a non-admin closer of several lengthy and somewhat controversial RfCs. In both cases their interpretation was sound, and their reasoning clear and detailed. A trio of traits that is nicely re-usable in any number of fields. Nosebagbear (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
32. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
33. 0xDeadbeef→∞ 04:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
34. Support Pleasant and helpful, logical and reasonable, and knows how to produce good content. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
35. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
36. Support Fair, reasonable, helpful. I'm not worried about the recall answer they gave as we have processes in place that have been shown to work that can address bad admin behavior. On a lighter note, how could I not support an editor who worked so hard on Scary Stories for Young Foxes! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
37. Support, no problems here. A familiar and welcome name on my watchlist. Graham87 07:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
38. Support. Thoroughly competent, no issues. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
39. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
40. Support --Ferien (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
41. Tempted to oppose on the basis of Q3's answer ~ an editor, a prospective admin no less, who apologises?? What next, the sky falling? ~ but most definitely support, regardless of the answer to my question. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
42. Suppport, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
43. Support, per what I've seen of their work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
44. Support. Has created 2 GA articles, has decent AfD/CSD logs, and experience with closures is excellent, I saw one of the closures by Isabelle in an RSN RfC and it was detailed and nuanced. VickKiang (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
45. Support My only concern has been dealt with an in a positive way that is an excellent indication of how they will be a great admin.Gusfriend (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
46. Support, look like Isabelle will make a good admin. --Salix alba (talk): 10:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
47. Support – unreservedly. Thanks for volunteering. Loopy30 (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
48. Support Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
49. Support Helpful in RC patrol, trusted to block and revdel. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
50. Support, everytime I've seen them I've had a good impression. The signature issue didn't bother me, but their handling of it was great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
51. Support looks good. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
52. Support Volten001 ^☎ 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
53. Support The handling of their signature alone tells me they have the temperament to had issues as an admin. Add that to the work they have done, and for me it's a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
54. Support: Fully qualified candidate with lots of content creation and anti-vandalism experience. The signature issue alone wasn't enough to sway me away from Support column, but its handling was also very impressive. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
55. Support: Trusted and competent user. Thingofme (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
56. Support - Everything I can see about this editor makes me think they will be a good administrator. I'm particularly impressed by their answer to question #7; making reasonable accommodations for others even though per the rules you don't have to is a good attitude for an administrator. - Aoidh (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
57. The most emphatic support possible. Will make a superb admin. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
58. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
59. Been around, has a clue. Nardog (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
60. Support - I felt compelled to !vote after seeing the neutral !vote below (even though it was since struck). I am awestruck, frankly, that this is the sort of ticky-tack stuff we are scrutinizing admin candidates over when they are otherwise competent and clueful individuals, such as this one. And I also dearly hope that the candidate's stance on recall does not similarly provoke protest !votes. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
61. Support. Easy call. Best of luck! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 15:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
62. Support Often see this user on recent changes. Experienced. Sarrail (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
63. Support Edit summary usage is not 100% but appears to be trying to do that. Pro tip: go to preferences, editing, and tick the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" box. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, this fails to flag when an edit summary with a comment is automatically included. A software update would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

64. No apparent problems NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
65. Support as co-nominator — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
66. Support clueful, good closes, thoughtful. Andre🚐 17:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
67. Support Bridget (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
68. High quality nominee. Introspective, even-tempered, even-handed. Will be a good fit. El_C 18:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
69. Support per nom, no problems here. BD2412 T 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
70. Support No issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
71. Support Seen them around quite a bit at RCP. Isabelle is an absolute pleasure to patrol with. All of their reverts and most of their CSD taggings (I like to see a CSD log) were accurate, indicating an understanding of policy. A wonderful candidate that I’m more than happy to !support. My only regret is that I just missed out on being their 69th !support vote ;) ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
72. Support The signature discussion shows exactly why they will be a great admin. Someone raised an issue, and instead of doubling down, they took the constructive "criticism" on board. They fixed it. ACERFC2022 closures are icing on the cake. Kind, competent. Yes, please! HouseBlaster^talk 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
73. Support. Can't remember seeing them around but the contributions look good and I trust the noms. Regards SoWhy 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
74. Support. I have seen Isabelle's work and believe they would be a good admin. Funcrunch (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
75. Support Sure, why not? Reading Beans (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
76. Support. Very happy with the substantial improvements to The Enola Holmes Mysteries article they made. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
77. Support. Great contributor. Calm demeanor. Solid judgment. Multilingual. Woman. Welcome to adminship! Cbl62 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
78. Support - I have ran into Isabelle through anti-vandalism patrol and found them to be knowledgeable of policies and guidelines and pleasant to edit with. In addition, I hold both nominators in extremely high regard. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
79. Support Looks good. Best of luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
80. Support. Excellent candidate. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
81. —Kusma (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
82. Support I've been waiting for this. I've seen them around and I think their use of the admin tools will be beneficial. Nythar^T.C 00:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
83. Support. Very well established user. Clyde ^{State your case} (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 00:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
84. Support – Seems pleasant, competent and trusted. Good candidate. DB1729^talk 00:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
85. SupportBanks Irk (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
86. Support. I too was surprised to learn that they weren't already an admin, given how much I see them around. Competent, cool-headed, and overall a great candidate. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
87. Support Definitely!!! Will make a great admin Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
88. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
89. Support. Within the past week, and not for the first time, I considered urging them to run. I've encountered their work in both content and more adminny areas, and I'm impressed with both quantity and quality of their contributions to the project. In particular, I look forward to having another admin as experienced in closing discussions as Isabelle is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
90. Support it is my honor to support this candidate. Administrators are given resources because they are trusted members of the community, but this candidate's history and demeanor give me the feeling that they will among the best-of-the-best. Answer to my question was thoughtful and thorough, as have been their other answers to the questions. Knows content and policies. Plenty of experience. Nominated and supported by the best-of-the-best. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
91. Support This candidate has strong qualifications, a friendly, helpful persona, and no negatives that I have been able to discern. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
92. Support. Utterly competent and would be a net positive to the admin corps. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
93. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
94. Support, ptwiki's loss is enwiki's gain. Boa sorte. Cabayi (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
95. Support, looks a very good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
96. Support why not? JarrahTree 10:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
97. Support as per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
98. Support: Competent, well qualified, knowledgeable! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
99. Support - quality content creation, discussion closes, and answers to questions here demonstrate thoughtful consideration of policies, guidelines, and the community. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
100. Support User will be a great admin closer of contentious discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
101. Support - A trustworthy, qualified candidate with the right temperment. Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
102. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 16:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
103. Support - not an editor I recall having encountered before, but reading the nominations and answer above, seems like a promising candidate. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
104. Support: expertise across many areas of the site, including with content work, anti-vandalism, closing discussions and pt.wiki editing. Isabelle Belato is a mentor and spotchecks show an excellent all-round temperament, including in contentious topics. No issues that I can see. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
105. Support Looks competent; good answers to the questions. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
106. Strong support - I see Isabelle all the time on Recent Changes kicking some serious vandal butt. Honest, no issues, and an all around great editor. I have no doubt that she will make a great admin. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
107. Support - Absolutely. alalalllla7 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
108. Support. I do not believe I have interacted with Isabelle, but from the nominations and answers to questions I support the adminship. SWinxy (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
109. Support. Great efforts in countering vandalism and I was impressed with their close of the most recent RfC on Azov Regiment, easy support. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
110. Support – I've seen them around and while I don't believe we've personally interacted, their actions have left a positive impression on me. Clovermoss (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I think that their contributions are good and they have been nominated by users who's judgement I trust. Unfortuately I cannot support anyone for Admin whilst their signature does not contain their full username. Having the displayed signature being different to the user name makes things just that little bit harder for newcomers (and even more experienced users sometimes). It means that when editors look at a talk page conversation there is a disconnect between how the user may be referred to and how their signature is presented. This can become more acute as admins are often dealing with situations where editors will already be stressed or frustrated. I realise that this may seem somewhat arbitrary and having signatures like this is supported by consensus but that is how I feel. Gusfriend (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC) 10:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a good point. Although I may find myself in the Support column soon, I hope Isabelle takes note of the issue you raise here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're objecting to them signing with Isabelle instead of Isabelle Belato? Valereee (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see where this comes from, but I don't think this would be a reason for me to be neutral or oppose especially as this shortening is just removing what seems to be to be a last name. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not objecting to them signing with Isabelle rather than Isabelle Belato, that is acting within consensus and a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I am however choosing to be Neutral rather than Support for their application for administratorship based on it. In the last month I have seen the wrong people pinged due to this and it has caught me out several times where I have followed a link to a user talk page and then had to go back to confirm that I am in the right place. I have no trouble with use of colours, etc. or clever talk page link text but this is where I have the concern. I realise that my reasoning may put me in a minority of one and it is a quixotic approach and otherwise they look like an excellent choice but that is where I am coming from. Gusfriend (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Would a simple correction to a signature change your stance on this candidate, Gusfriend? I agree that some signatures I've seen are indecipherable but I usually leave a comment about this on the editor's talk page and they make a change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call Isabelle's signature indecipherable. Obviously they're going to see this discussion and can, as CX Zoom suggests, decide if they wish to tweak their signature. I do appreciate Gusfriend noting that what Isabelle has done is well with-in current community consensus for signatures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Certainly Liz and if I hadn't been giving it some thought over the last few weeks I would have been really happy to support such a strong candidate. Overall they appear to be an excellent candidate and are receiving broad support from a large number of trusted editors. Gusfriend (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I must say I struggle to understand why this would warrant an oppose !vote. Many administrators and experienced users shorten their signatures, or put their real names in instead, because they are able to be personalised and as such people will have their own unique ways of doing this. Plus, they have only removed their surname, and one can simply hover over the username/look in the signature in the source code to see the full username. If the signature had clashing colours that were difficult to read, I would understand, but this is not the case. Patient Zero^talk 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the signature is a problem, but I do a lot of editing using the desktop site on my phone, and the hover-to-see-full-username thing doesn't work when using a phone (or a tablet I assume). There's a growing share of editors that edit from mobile, so hovering shouldn't be seen as a workaround. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Then you could always look in the signature code instead - for example, say I decided to go by "PZ" in my signature, when editing a Wikipedia page you can see the user's full username in the signature code, so you would be able to see my username is in fact Patient Zero. I understand it may take a while to get used to for newer editors, granted. Patient Zero^talk 02:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: when using desktop view on the phone, leaving a link pressed for a few seconds makes the navigation popup pop up (heehee ). –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither of these is good, as one requires opening a different page and looking for the signature to see the username, and the navigation popup seldom displays the full length of the url, and you can't copy the username to ping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What is needed here is neither a neutral !vote nor a pile-on condemnation, but a question to the user, which I have now asked (#7). — Bilorv (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There are around a dozen user names that begin with 'Isabelle', if not more. What is needed is a good faith minor tweak to the signature. In any case, as far as this RfA is concerned, it's not a dealbreaker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Did you mean RfA, Kudpung? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I did. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)