User talk:Cezxmer

Steaua

Could you please stop with changing all kind of links from FCSB to Steaua? There has been a lot of discussion about how to solve the mess created around Steaua. And now you are steam rolling every thing back, creating loads of links to disambiguation pages in the process. Please take a look at Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute and participate in the discussion there. I know the situation is complex and confusing, with courts ruling this way and then that way. Wikipedia works on reliable sources, not on emotions. So please, take part in the discussion. The Banner talk 10:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that the current situation misinforms and is very confusing to the reader. Most of the links I've changed were pre-1998 (UEFA cups, players, etc.), and from this point of view things are pretty clear. Both court rulings and common sense dictate that a team that was created this century can't be the one who won the ECC in 1986. More so, players from that era never played for FC FCSB, so it is factually wrong to have them linked to that team.

In my opinion, I suggest that there should be 4 distinct articles.

1. CSA Steaua Bucuresti, football section of the same multi-sport club, and have everything from 1947 to 1998 linked to it.

2. AFC Steaua, non-profit association, distinct entity that had the right to use the "Steaua" brand. Links from 1998-2003

3. FC Steaua, club created in 2003 that illegally used the brand. Links from 2003-2017

4. FC FCSB, 2017-present.

Regarding points 3. and 4. see: Link 1 ; Link 2 Cezxmer (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and that the situation is really confusing. That is why I pointed you at the other discussion and asked you to take part in the discussion there. We had a lot of problem editors in this field and hope you are not one of them. So please, join the discussion there. The Banner talk 13:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding club 3 "FC Steaua". As far as I know, they were stripped of the right to use that brand in 2017. Before that court case, they used the brand legally. Unless you have sources that even before the court case, the name was declared illegal. The Banner talk 19:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they never had the right use the brand. I don't really understand what you are trying to ask of me. These court cases started around 2011, so there weren't many press articles because the documents were not accessible. However, this does not make the FC Steaua brand ordeal legal. The final ruling of a court case can be applied retroactively.

Head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#FCSB v CSA Steaua București (yet again). I explained there in a lot more detail. Cezxmer (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#FCSB v CSA Steaua București (yet again). --Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSA Steaua records dispute (copy)

It is important to note that CSA Steaua Bucuresti is a multi-sport club that was founded on June 7th, 1947. The club started with eight sports departments, including football. In the year 1998, the club ceased its football activity and a non-profit association named AFC Steaua took its place in the first division. This association had the right to use the “Steaua” name and brand, but never owned them. During the 2002-2003 season, AFC Steaua ceased its football activity and was replaced by a new team called FC Steaua ^{(official answer from the Ministry of Sport about the foundation year)}. However, the newly created entity broke every rule of the Romanian Football Federation and had no right to use the “Steaua” name or brand. In 2004, FC Steaua formally requested to use the name and brand from CSA Steaua Bucuresti, but the request was declined. Despite this, the team continued to use the fraudulent name.

Since 2014, there have been three major court rulings:

- Brand, definitive. In favor of CSA Steaua and barred FC Steaua from using the brand;

- Name, definitive. In favor of CSA Steaua and barred FC Steaua from using the name, resulting in the club being renamed Fotbal Club Fcsb;

- Honours/Records, partially definitive. CSA Steaua is the owner of the period from 1947-1998 and AFC Steaua ( defunct ) is the owner of the period from 1998-2003. Both are final and can’t be challenged. The reason this decision is only partially definitive is because we are still waiting for a final decision on the period from 2003 to 2017. FC Fcsb requested it, but the court did not grant it to them. ^{[source 1] [source 2] [source 3]}

Other recent and somewhat relevant information:

- In 2020, some of FC Fcsb's supporters organized into an association that participated in the Honours/Records dispute. After the Court of Appeal issued its decision in October, one of the association's founders, who is a lawyer himself, renounced his initial position and withdrew from the dispute. ^[source]

- Last August, FC Fcsb played three games at Steaua Stadium, but they had to sign a contract that included a condition to renounce and withdraw all claims that they are "Steaua" from their website, or their employees statements. ^[source]

Given the situation, it would be reasonable for there to be a consensus that the 1947-1998 articles are full of inaccuracies and that the links referring to Steaua Bucharest should redirect to... Steaua Bucharest.

Currently, there is a clear bias towards FC Fcsb as there are still many redirects that point to their article. Additionally, there is misinformation regarding the honors and founding date of FC Fcsb. How can two different teams have the same founding date and records? The current situation is clearly confusing the reader.

Most of the links I've changed were pre-1998 (UEFA cups, players, etc.), and from this point of view things are pretty clear. Both court rulings and common sense dictate that a team that was created this century can't be the one who won the ECC in 1986. More so, players from that era never played for FC Fcsb, so it is factually wrong to have them linked to that team.

In my opinion, I suggest that there should be 4 distinct articles.

1. CSA Steaua Bucuresti, football section of the same multi-sport club, and have everything from 1947 to 1998 linked to it.

2. AFC Steaua, non-profit association, distinct entity that had the right to use the "Steaua" brand. Links from 1998-2003

3. FC Steaua, club created in 2003 that illegally ^{[source 1] [source 2] [source 3] [source 4]} used the "Steaua" brand. Links from 2003-2017

4. FC Fcsb, 2017-present. ( At the moment, according to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, FC Fcsb doesn't even own the period between 2003-2017. So, they have only one cup. )

Cezxmer (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with writing AFC Steaua and FC Steaua. The Banner talk 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steaua links

A Wikipedia:Requests for comments which you commented in (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 165#Request for comment: FCSB v CSA Steaua București) took place on the very topic of records relating to Steaua, and which team represents the 20th-century Steaua Bucharest club. The RfC was closed with the following decision: There is consensus that FCSB is the successor to the Steaua Bucharest club. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus to better understand how decisions are made on Wikipedia. Your recent edits are WP:DISRUPTIVE by going against this consensus, and have been reverted. If you disagree with the consensus or want to discuss the matter further, please take the discussion to WT:FOOTY instead of reverting against the current consensus. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]