User talk:Number 57

Click here to leave a new message.

Legislative Elections - France

Seems people from Twitter/X are reverting your work. Impru20 has come to me to ask for where the conversation was to agree for the legislative election temp. was made too, for the French leg. elects. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because people on social media are indignant about what goes on over here, that doesn't mean their voices should be ignored!!!

Many of those people have an invested interest because what you've built over here happens to be a useful resource for tens of thousands of people. They are about it because they love it and they use it. Some of them even contribute to elections wiki. Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

They're reverting the work cause the info boxes are objectively a better way of communicating the information Aidanaddsthings (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aidanaddsthings: No so, if elected independents aren't represented. Even if it's just one. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not gonna fight this out in a guy's talk page but this really reeks of missing the forest for the trees Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Put a table then in another part of the article then? Otherwise I concur with my pal @Talleyrand6. Hyraemous (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Ditto with @Talleyrand6 and @Hyraemous. Can't see a reason to not have the candidate's portraits in the first section of the page. Lucksash (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's one of the main issues here – no-one has a problem with using the election infobox for presidential/mayoral elections where the photos are of the actual candidates. IMO it is not appropriate to use an image of an individual for a parliamentary election because people are voting for a party or for an individual candidate in their constituency. If there should be any photos, it should be of the party logos, because they are what is being voted for. Number 57 03:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not true in many cases. Many parliamentary elections people are de facto voting for a prime minister and therefore is appropriate to have the party leader's photo CCimposter (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 Siglæ (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And who made you the arbiter of this, or anything for that matter? You and your mates have been criticised for citing conversations on talk pages which supposedly agree on a consensus when in reality no such consensus exists - and indeed there is no record of such conversations. You are extraordinarily stubborn, selfish, and cavalier in your edits and disregard virtually all criticism directed at them. Mapperman03 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Technically he is an admin therefore some of that authority is derived from that role. Which makes all of this very inappropriate for an admin to do for a encyclopedia that is meant to be collaborative. Hyraemous (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a perfectly fair opinion to have with some merit behind it, the issue is that you have been imposing that view upon the entire site for years. There is not consensus on that matter — if anything I doubt discussion would go your way (likely why you seem to try to avoid discussion). Like with many of these disputes, you have to change your behavior to instead of going on a systematic effort to change things without meaningful discussion, just make your point. I don't really agree but there's certainly a case there. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

These changes are clunky. Being immediately given a giant spreadsheet instead of the professionally drawn maps and charts is not intuitive to people wanting to start to learn about these. There is obviously nowhere near consensus to change what has been working well for years now. Sophistry27 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Maps were not removed, and in most cases became more visible because the alternative infobox form is shorter and readers don't have to scroll down to see it. Number 57 03:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Shorter only in some cases. The infobox for the 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections is an example of this system's failings. Lucksash (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point put the larger party seats in the information box and put the rest of the party stuff in a dedicated table for cases like my pal Luck mentioned... Hyraemous (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed to see the infoboxes being changed back, but a big problem of what is now going on is people blindly reverting made up or incorrect election results back into articles. I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs. Number 57 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

People are reverting your edits which are omitting important information about voter numbers and turnout, along with other information. You are actively making it harder to find out information about these elections in an easy way. If corrections need to be made, then make them without cutting out important information. Wikipedia is meant to be easily digestible, and your edits make it harder to find the facts Maxine McKeown (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Imma have to agree with this. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with Maxine Zlad! (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this Dylan Glasbergen (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

gonna have to agree with this, the infoboxes are just word vomit, its really difficult to parse through them to read and identify the important information - such as turnout, voter number change or leader of party A0957 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 I understand the frustration with the unsourced results especially, but it does seem like there is little explanation of why such results must be in particular formats. I've asked for clarification on discussions as prior mentioned with @ValenciaThunderbolt and @Impru20, and if you could provide them it would be swell. Especially when there is just a brushing off of such efforts as 'blind reverts' when there are other conflicting reasons it leads people to be more up in arms. Regards, Quinby (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that changing the format of a infobox is different to correcting potentially false information. One can remove potentially false information without massively changing a infobox's look. Hyraemous (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 Siglæ (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're correcting misinformation on the articles, then that's certainly a good thing - but going ahead with all of these unpopular changes to the infobox formatting alongside the fixes results isn't the way to do it. ItsAstronomical (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No one hit the undo buttons, they just added the infobox back without touching other stuffs. Anonymousioss (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not true – there are dozens of examples where people have reverted back in nonsense results. Here an editor reverts back in a set of results that are largely made up (vote totals and percentages have been back-calculated from the seat totals). Here an editor reverts back an incomplete and unsourced version of the results table (which doesn't match the sourced found). Number 57 02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is, why not fix the results in these articles without changing the whole infobox?

I don't have the greatest grasp of Wikipedia orthodoxy/rules, but it seems to be causing more harm than good? Just laying my two cents. CainNKalos (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I thought it was an improvement to change the infobox at the same time I was correcting the result figures. But if someone doesn't like the infobox change, they should revert only that part of it back, without blindly reverting all the other changes. Number 57 03:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Lemme rephrase then.

Why keep changing the infobox to what you prefer when it keeps causing controversy at large and on other websites then? I think I can remember this being the 3rd time at least where I can remember this sorta thing popping up since Nov '23.

It feels like putting your head in the lion's mouth and asking to get it chopped on? I'm not trying to provoke/cause offence, but it just feels a little bit like the definition of insanity. CainNKalos (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Or like, you know, don’t change the visual part when consensus isn’t reach and stick to changing the wrong information without causing an edit war? It isn’t that hard Siglæ (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs." Peak fucking irony lol. It's a Trap Dang it (talk) It's a Trap Dang it (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. That's actually a sign of authoritarian rule and double standard. When they are the ones who made the changes, did they actually look at what they are doing?

A new RfC is the way to go. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

57, what is going on? This is really Twitter-related? Plz let me know if I can help--I have no involvement with these articles. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's only twitter-related insofar as the issue was first noticed there. There has, to my knowledge, been so sort of collective action from there. All of the outrage at Number 57's actions is a wholly warranted reaction. All of the page revisions, however, are wholly organic to Wikipedia users AFIK. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. I see this pop up every few months now, and it's pretty much always Number 57 related.

I think it's really just a clash between how Twitter users like seeing the election articles, and between how Number 57/related Wikipedian's like seeing the articles. (Personally, I think most 'normal' people would prefer articles to be like the former.) CainNKalos (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of us on Wikipedia would also agree with Twitter folks. Also there's a similar issue with him and election maps.

The principle stands though. He does these things without consulting the broader community. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6, I wasn't really asking you--and yet I think I answered you already, elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this, one of the reason this idea is so unpopular on Twitter, is because making election wikiboxes is a form of creative expression and interacting with your friends, as trite as that may sound. To have a singular force seem to want to remove this makes that force very, very, VERY unpopular with people who know little of how Wikipedia's systems function. Lucksash (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not very charitable Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's how I know it because I'm happily part of that community. Lucksash (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Bluntly, Number 57, your actions here seem to me innapropriate, in that they are mass altering article infoboxes in a clearly controversial way without establishing any sort of centralised consensus first. I would recommend that you refrain from altering any more until a discussion is held to achieve such a consensus. Personal preference is not an excuse to alter essentially every single parliamentary election page over the wishes of many other editors. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 until further notice. This is not new and it was rampant enough for an entire YouTube video to be made on the subject. Hyraemous (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I went and had a quick look at said YouTube video, and uh. 300k views isn't great. Especially with comments getting 3, 4k likes actively not liking this particular editor.

So +1 as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVIl_DJl5NU&pp=ygUWd2lraXBlZGlhIGVsZWN0aW9uIHdhcg%3D%3D CainNKalos (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wish to add that the role of an administrator should be to maintain order and encourage consensus-making. Your actions, such as creating a false consensus with only 4 people, instead contributed to disorder and instability.

I agree with the move to replace false information or trying to make the info boxes simpler. But since:

• The changes are overly major and it in the process unnecessarily sacrifices too many information
• The move was so controversial that it has been causing chaos and disagreements among the community for months
• It has been imposed upon by a minority of users when others were not properly informed, and later maintained authoritatively without a proper medium of creation of new consensus

I believe you indeed should rescind yourself from the edits in avoidance of further chaos, and allow the broader community to reach a consensus. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I rarely chime in on here, but for what it's worth, I agree with this and think a wider discussion is needed here. Number57 has made many great points and made invaluable contributions, but he seems to be making unpopular changes and seems willing to railroad them through. Ceboswell21 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think on this especially it's shown with the low user count RfCs being used to make broad sweeping changes. There were only 2-4 users contributing in some of his consensus citations, and it can seem like Number57 has been going recently into the territory of WP:GAME violations. It seems that it's repeatedly come up on issues with his recent edits in this manner. While he's made some invaluable contributions to Wikipedia, such as his edits on early Icelandic elections, his recent infobox changes on elections articles have been really quite damaging to the formatting many people are used to, especially when as I mentioned earlier, he's doing it through railroaded tactics that seem to be a violation of WP:GAME. CIN I&II (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.

Personally I believe an administrator should be able to address their own changes just like every other ordinary user would. They should, although be able to advocate their own views, remain as neutral as possible when maintaining a serious discussion on a creation of consensus among users on matters.

Number 57 has shown none of that over the years. His track record has shown him unilaterally enforcing changes towards the community as a whole, with dissent not even considered. This shows a concerning trend of a rise in authoritarianism in his rule. And this cannot be continued.

WP:ADMIN expected administrators to communicate when they make significant changes. Not only has Number 57 failed to do so, his actions actually may be in breach of basic policies, by indirectly but seemingly knowingly causing consistent edit warring among users of differing views, as well as a rise in tensions. This is not the kind of behaviour of which one would expect from an administrator.

I do not wish to be blunt, but if even under this overwhelming opposition against the radical infobox changes that he decides it is a good idea to reverse the new consensus in favour of ordinary election infoboxes or begin suppressing dissent, then there would be serious doubts on whether Number 57 should continue to serve as an administrator of this site. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 this is precisely the point Siglæ (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the first move is to get this discussion moved to a policy page where it can be discussed because right now, whatever you think of the these changes, it looks like a Twitter mob has descended on to Number 57's User talk page to complain and while it might feel good to vent, it's a terrible way to change the system as it focuses on one person, not the process and changing it to whatever version you prefer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It focuses on the one person that also ignored the process and changed it to whatever version he prefers. Edit warring isn’t ok, but we can’t just ignore the causes. I will gladly partecipate to the policy page discussion. Siglæ (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Where do we go? Hyraemous (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for the discussion, here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_legislative_election#The_template_requires_urgent_upgrades CainNKalos (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello My name is Nafis Amin. I am a Bangladeshi Tuvaluan Muslim living in Riyadh. Can I know you please? Travelhijabi (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)