User talk:Efc1878

April 2017

Hello. I am an administrator here. Please do not edit war. Please observe WP:BRD. Who is right and wrong about timestamps is not my concern. That is a content dispute. I am posting here about you reverting. If you make an edit and it is disputed and reverted, then you must post at the article talk and get consensus. That is BRD and that is how it works here. If you just revert again and again, you will get blocks of increasing lengths. We do not want that. Please, just work with the community, okay? Many thanks for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to repeat the above. Your edits are really useful, and we can understand the frustration when somebody reverts you, but edit warring is not the route to go down. Giant Snowman 19:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Your recent editing history at Idrissa Gueye shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Giant Snowman 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ignored everyone's warnings and words of advice. It's clear you WP:DONTGETIT. Your next block will be indefinite. Giant Snowman 19:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Anna Frodesiak: FYI. Giant Snowman 19:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor GiantSnowman: I've been watching and support your decision to issue a final warning. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Well well well...It seems like the admins are double-standard and have favourites. So why did you let Qed237 reverting then and he kept doing it without warnings? Check out the history and see who started this editing war. You lot are not consistent in your decision. Last time another admin said there is no definiate way of timestamping and you endure people like Qed237 for doing what he wants. Impartial? Nah. Really disappointed because you listened merely on an editor who abuse the revert function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efc1878 (talk • contribs)

No favourites. I wrote to Qed237: "Hi again, Qed237. I do not even see clear consensus about timestamps, and I am guessing that both ways are used in different articles. Is that correct? If so, then if you are the one that makes it one way, and you get reverted, then you must also observe BRD and not start reverting. From my point of view, if this is a content dispute, then whoever changes the stable version must accept being reverted and take it to talk rather than reverting back...". Both of you observe WP:BRD and all will be well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough admin but if you check the history. Pre-editing war...my editings were the stable version and the original because I have been doing editing for Everton in my earliest opportunity week in week out. I am an Evertonian myself. If Qed237 or his multi continues to do this reverting thing in the future I will report him. I am not arsed to do it this time I was busy in the last couple of days. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efc1878 (talk • contribs)

You are right. I see this in at least one article, and maybe many more. Do not worry. I will keep an eye on Qed237 and others. Please post at my talk page if you have problems like this again in the future.

Also, please end your talk page posts with ~~~~

Also, please do not say "retarded" or "idiot". You make good edits here and I want you to stay and continue. I will also be on your side whenever you are right. Almost everyone here is friendly and reasonable. It is just that feelings run high at football articles, and you've bumped into other editors who are passionate as you when it comes to how things should be. The plan is to be patient, discuss, and try to work things out. I am here to help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anna. Much appreciated. If possible, kindly talk to GiantSnowman. He barely listened to one individual. One side of the story. Efc1878 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Please don't edit while logged out to try and continue your edit war. We're cleverer than you think. Giant Snowman 09:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you were accusing me of doing something based on pure guessing and you have no evidence to back it up, okay.

I was calling some of the admin double-standard and I was not referring to Anna actually. In fact, I was referring to you because without a doubt, you are not an impartial person and can abuse the power of being an admin due to the fact that you blindly let Qed237 reverting my editing in this affair and let him do what he wants because you two might know each other for a while. You merely listen to an editor who has a history of abusing the revert function. Cos he is your favourite?

Please be reminded that to check out the history and see who started this edit war. All along I was amending these pages on a week in, week out basis and those pages of my edition were the original version pre this editing war. I have been dedicated my time to the pages and it looks like you, being an admin, do not appreciate my effort. For instance, the James McCarthy page. I added 16:28 back to the date (which is 5 March 2017, timestamp career section) because I did amend the page on the material day right after the match (again go and check out the view history section). I urge you should go and check out the history. What's wrong with that? The Seamus Coleman page, I amended the timestamp back after someone changed it. What's wrong with that? I was the first to amend all these pages after matches and it was people like Qed237 who turned out to change these timestamps to whatever he deems fit. If you think Qed237 prevails in everything, you should make it clear and tell me.

There was another admin who said there is no definiate way of timestamping and there is no solution so why did you barely listen to Qed237 and reverting all these pages? And not only the timestamps, the contents and references of some of the pages as well.

Could you please explain? Who can actually make a decision since every admin said literally different thing.

Thanks. Efc1878 (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:BRD, the basic idea is that when content in an article is unchanged for a long time, it is considered stable. If editor #1 changes that content, and editor #2 sees that and doesn't like it, editor #2 can revert. Then, editor #1 must get consensus to have that change he wanted in the first place. It is a bit grey because who says how long a version must sit there before it becomes "stable"? The bottom line is: if you make a change to how things have been for a long time in an article, and then Qed237 quickly reverts, then you need consensus.

However, if you made a change to how things have been for a short time, say, a couple of days, then you are the one reverting to a stable version and Qed237 and the original changer who came just before you must get consensus.

Please, please, get the idea of a fight between you and Qed and GiantSnowman taking sides out of your head. This is not a school yard. This is a place where we drop all that and look for solutions that work. Look at the matter, not the editors. How can we all agree?

Finally, the IP who came and targeted those articles and reverted. I have been here 8 years and GiantSnowman much longer. The customs person at the airport sees thousands of people and their eyes and body language. How do they know who has the drugs? Experience. Years and years of patterns and likelihoods and scenarios. They do not need proof to say "Please come with us." The smuggler is thinking "There's no way to tell." They do not realize they are dealing with people who have been doing this for years and see thousands of people. I checked the IP's edits. Out of the blue, picked those articles, made exactly those reverts, hardly any other edits? A different user stalking you, agreeing with you, following your edits, helping you? A zillion to one against. No way. Your "So you were accusing me of doing something based on pure guessing and you have no evidence to back it up, okay." response? Old school. We've seen it a million times, almost word-for-word. Your thinking? We know it: "They can't prove it." To be clear, this is not real life and you are not protected by the law here. We use our best judgement, and that is good enough to block indefinitely. Please, just call this a lesson learned. Play fair. Discuss. Look at the issue and get it resolved. Don't war. Never, ever WP:SOCK.

Now, I just spent ten minutes helping you here. Please, don't make me regret it. You know how to procede.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna thank you for replying my post when it seems that GiantSnowman has no guts answering enquiry from an editor. You are talking about consensus. The problem was that there was no consensus all along. None. GiantSnowman had not reviewed the history he just blindly followed the instructions's from Qed. They reverted about 15 pages of my editing while none of my versions were adopted. How unfair was it do you understand my frustration? As you are aware, there is no definiate way in connection with the method of timestamping. The James McCarthy page for example, even I played the game by their rule with regards to the timestamp section they just changed it back! Play fair? It does not exist. This is hypocritic because while admin like GiantSnowman said editors shall find consensus among them, it is clearly his decision favoured one particular editor otherwise half of my editing from those pages would be adopted instead.

GiantSnowman got his wish. I will cease updating the pages unless the management changes or at least a decent admin will review the matter again. A tyrant has won because he has the power to do what he wants for his favourite. I will take sometime off from my work and would like to file a complaint to wik about GiantSnowman, could you post a link for me, please. Thank you for your consideration. Efc1878 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am just off to bed and will reply more later. You may be right about the past and who reverted what. But let's look to the future. Please don't say "no guts" or "tyrant" because we are not allowed to attack each other here. We must stay friendly. :) As for a complaint against GiantSnowman to wik, well, I must inform you that there is no "wik". The buck stops here. We are self-governing and there is nobody to complain to beyond the community itself. It is a good system. People watch and side with those who they feel are right. Again, let's look to the future. We want you here editing and working together. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will mind my language. I am gutted and sounds out of my frustration. I apologize for that.

I am sure this contradiction about the timestamp issue will persist in the future (if not me there will be others). I wonder how the admin will tackle this issue?

Thank you for your time again Anna. Efc1878 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand how frustrated you feel. But emotions and Wikipedia do not mix. There is no need to feel gutted. Plus, this is not a huge thing in the big scheme of things. This is all good life practice at saying "Meh, no big deal." :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature times

I am not 100% sure what is going on with that, but it appears that your signature does not produce the time that matches when Wikipedia says you made the post. Would you be a dear and please fix that. I think you just need to go to "Preferences" and click "Appearance" and at "Time offset" select "Wiki default (UTC). Stalkers, is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that. Cheers Anna. Efc1878 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, my friend. The history matches your post time. I will post below about indenting. I hope you don't mind. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indent your posts

QUICK TIP Indent your posts with colons, like this: I like bunnies. :Me too. ::So, we both like bunnies? :::Yep. Looks that way. ::::Pretty stupid conversaton. :::::Yep. Did I tell you I'm left handed? :No kidding? Me too. :) I like kittens. :Me too. ::So, we both like kittens. etc. etc.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. You teach me new stuff. Efc1878 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not indent! Ha!

Indent like this!

Even more!!!

Super indent! Click edit and see. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating stats

As you have been told previously, please do NOT update stats until the match has finished (or at least until the player in question has been subbed off!). Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? He has already started and played in the game. If he scores, I will add the stats. No big deal. Efc1878 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because what if he scores, and then you add the goal, and then someone else does as well? Leads to incorrect stats. Giant Snowman 19:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will check out the correct stats and amend them, as always. Thanks. Efc1878 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus not to do live updates. Follow it or get yourself blocked. What if your internet connection goes down or ssomething? Then you can not correct it. We always update after matches are finsished. Qed237 (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. That was not live update. They had already started the game when I updated the stats. I do not live in a third world country. Internet went down and I can't correct them? It's not zombie apocalypse. What a lot of bullshit that was. Efc1878 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No updates until matches has ended, it is consensus and now you know. Qed237 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp again

@GiantSnowman and Anna Frodesiak: See this edit after Struway2 updated infobox. It is clear that Efc1878 still want their timestamp, but it is your call. Qed237 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This after updating the same nationalteam timestamp he had already been blocked for hidden in an other edit (diff). Qed237 (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for your parents Qed237. You go and do it.

Anna, I amended the statistics and timestamps in the proper way. The players played the game I updated the statistics and timestamps on the material day. Someone changed the timestamps of those players' pages the following day and I reverted them back because that guy only changed the timestamp without updating anything (statistics wised). Afterthat, I got banned from editing by the wiki tyrant GiantSnowman.

These guys want to kick me out well they get their wish but I will find way to file complaint against them. GiantSnowman is a two faced, double standard individual. How poor wiki is who is run by these guy like GiantSnowman. I tell you what Anna there were no consensus all along. It's GiantSnowman's decision. Efc1878 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to resort to personal attacks or you will be blocked from editing your talkpage as well. Qed237 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Do you have any comment about mentioning parents and attacking editors? Qed237 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You seemed to be getting it re:timestamps - but it's clear you are slipping back into your old ways. Hopefully this block will be your last - because if not then your next one will be. Giant Snowman 10:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol at you hypocritic, double standard, the so called "mods" who abused your power. A wiki tyrant. So people may wish to change anything they like including the timestamps even nothing about stats were updated? It depends on who you are actually. The crap spouting out of your mouth is unbelievable. I amended the stats and timestamps on the material day (when players started for their clubs), someone changed the timestamps on the following day I reverted them back to yesterday evening status and you were accusing me of doing something wrong? Face it, you and your favourites can change the pages as you like because I am out of it. I wish I can file complaint against you because you are doing a poor job. Efc1878 (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain it. You have the responsibility to answer. Efc1878 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain it, one last time.

You're continuing to miss the point. The Everton F.C. player articles belong to the encyclopedia, and we're all here to get the encyclopedia correct.

In the case of footballer infobox stats, the timestamp feeds into the wording at the bottom of the box that says "and correct as of...". It's not necessarily a reflection of when the edit was made. It's a time/date at which the stats are unambiguously correct, which means after, not during, the last match included in the player's stats.

You left them all set to a time during the match.

In the case of Ross Barkley, you left the timestamp set to before he scored the goal included in his stats, which made his infobox unambiguously wrong.

Earlier this morning, I replaced the incorrect timestamp with one after the match. You then undid those changes to revert to the incorrect version. Given your history on this stuff, what did you expect to happen? Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barkley yes I forgot to update the timestamps after I added the goal he scored yesterday.

A player played in a game. It won't change whether it is the 30 mins, 45mins or right after the match (unless he can play 2 matches in 90 mins). If he scored a goal, an editor corrected the stats afterwards what's the big deal? I used to have time I can do that.

Both Qed237 and GiantSnowman wanted to kick me out and I don't buy into this hypocritic consensus theory. One person went on to ban people but have no guts to answer anything. Job well done. Silence is a damn good thing. Efc1878 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Efc1878, do not attack others again. Nobody wants you kicked out. We just want the articles to be right and we want to all work together to make that happen. Half a dozen community members feel one way, and you the other. We are not all wrong, and you right. Fit in with community wishes or do not be here.

I spent time helping you and now another fight. I do not want my time or community resources wasted. This has cost hours in keystrokes and page reads. How many edits could we have made instead of dealing with this? Maybe 667. You have made 667. You are a net neutral. If you become a net negative, the community will see you off permanently. When your block expires, please make only uncontroversial edits. If in doubt, do not click save. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Apologize to you Anna. I have not logged in for the past 2 days. I only realize I got banned permanently by that giant guy. I made more than 667 edits I tended not to log in when editing in the past. But there you do. Thanks for your time. Efc1878 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak and GiantSnowman: IS this a sock? Has happened before. Qed237 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I do not want to kick you out, I want you to listen to other editors and collaborate. There is consensus not to do updates while matches are in progress and update all stats and timestamp (with tildes so you get a correct timestamp), after matches has finished. And timestamps is updated when someone has verified the stats. If you listen instead of arguing against everything, it would be easier to collaborate here on wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qed237, yes, I think it is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Then should any action be taken? He has been told before to not do it again, yet he did. Qed237 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Qed237 you do understand what's mean by hypocritical? It's like you. On one hand, you say you will listen and reach consensus blah blah blah (really? consensus? You tend to have the history of it, you just reverted and complained on people who did not amend pages in your way). On the other hand you reverted everything I added and asked the admin to block me. Frankly, what's the point of blocking ip? People may change their ip or buy a sim card or something. Anyway... Efc1878 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You were obviously using an IP to evade your block. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Well Anna, I would like to say it goes both way. If Qed237 is not Qed237 there shall not be such argument happened. Personally, it is untrue consensus exists because clearly those who knows how to play these house rules wins (such as friendly with admins). While I can't be arsed to read all these complicated application house rules like Qed237, I urge wiki to make clear legislation on the timestamp issue. An editor can be blocked due to some individual who has power in hand, disagreed with his/her editing when no clear rules regarding timestamping (Struway2 said this before, correct me if I am wrong) was written in the past. Qed237 had also involved in this editing war and I believe he got no punishment. This is odd. A personal argument (editing war) involving me and another editor aka Qed237 (and his friend, an admin called Giantwhatever, 2 people at most), and I received block forever. This is damn harsh. Qed237 kept pushing and I got block from 1 week to indefiniately (guess this is mean forever). Abusing of power and there is favourite. Surely I was not wrong on that. Anna don't get me wrong I was referring to the admin who blocked me forever. Have a goodday. Efc1878 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]