User talk:Jafdfm

FYI, although the warnings given to you mentioned vandalism, what you were actually blocked for was edit warring. In that respect, you were the only editor in the wrong: you reverted the article six times today; no single user reverted this account more than twice. The brightline rule is three reverts within 24 hours, which you clearly exceeded. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Do you want me to count how many times Serols reverted the article? 6! Is he blocked? No, so i rest my case! You said i am blocked because i reverted the article 6 times, the guy did the same.—Jafdfm (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC) @C.Fred: I will be waiting for the block to Serols (talk · contribs) accordingly to the brightline rule three reverts within 24 hours, which he clearly exceeded.—Jafdfm (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to go that far back, then we have to consider how many of the edits by Serols are exempted from the brightline rule (see WP:3RRNO) under exemption criteria 3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users." The IP that Serols initially reverted appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked user B Futebol SAD. Thus, all of the reverts of edits by the IP don't count. Your third edit was to revert Serols' last revert of the IP, and in one of their reverts of you, SLBedit made reference to you potentially being a block evader.[1] So, SLBedit's reverts of you are excepted from 3RR, and I will give Serols the benefit of the doubt that their edits qualify as well. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: All my reverts were to correct the Serols mistake, does that apply to that exempt? So if i revert one mistake, the dude keeps doing the same mistake without paying any attention to the information or links i provide and he gest "exempted" and i don't? As i said before, really fair this system you have here. I will notice also the time proximity of the edits from SLBedit and Serols. Is it only me who thinks they worked together to revert the article to the vandalism state? Resuming: the article reverted to an state where it is not accordingly to the decisions of the portuguese courts but we are here only talking about rules who only apply to some users are others get "special exempt". For god sake... I quit!

This is about your edit warring. WP:NOTTHEM. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, that does not: there's no evidence that Serols was blocked and is evading the block. There is circumstantial evidence to back the claim that the IP is evading a block, and that you are also evading said block. Thus, I think the exemption applies, since it is reasonable to conclude that you might be evading a block. (If I thought there were compelling evidence that you were evading the block, then your account would be indefinitely blocked, not blocked for 48 hours.) Further, I see no evidence that either Serols or SLBedit were editing in bad faith, so their edits are not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: What do you call when the editor ignores every information and citations provided about his mistakes and keeps reverting it? I call it bad faith! So, now i am also the IP and the blocked user. Is there someone else you want me to take the blame? Hitler maybe?

Based on that logic and this source, should I then conclude your edits are in bad faith? —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Congratulations, for the first time in 6 hours we are discussing the issue. According to that, yes, my edits are wrong. But you are not seing the big picture here: - This trial began in 2018 and to avoid damages of the ilegal use of the symbols and name there was a decision to prevent that damages, so, all courts decided that until the trial ends all uses must stop and a fine of 3000€ a day for each day breaking the decision. Then, the trial proceeded and in February there was the first decision, of three courts that will decide this. So, basically the trial is not ended, the decision you quoted is not final and until then the only final decision is to stop all uses of the names and symbol. FPF calls the team B SAD, if you check the Portuguese wiki page they follow this decision and there was several tries of the club B to change it and the answer was only the same. Was I clear? Do you want links to check the true?

The policy for article titles here is WP:COMMONNAME - if the club is commonly known as "Belenenses SAD", then that's the title of the article. This should all have been resolved by following WP:BRD and not claiming vandalism, in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Verifiability, yes, we need to see news stories about the ruling. And even then, the article might not be retitled, but the note about the alternate name would just be amplified. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: You are confused in this case, that was what the user did, not me. I reverted the edition from the user explaining in his talk page why we was wrong and the First thing he did was threatening me of block for vandalism. After the first edit the other user started with theories of evading block. All I did was explain the situation and then when the user keeps reverting without even reading what I send. The obvious thing to say is that he is doing vandalism. What do you call it?

@C.Fred: If you want I can provide several articles about the case. Maybe you could reach the user Dux from the Portuguese wiki. He denied the claim from B SAD about the name and can explain to you the surroundings of the case.

@Zzuuzz: Please explain to me why did you block me and not Serols if i did the same number of reverts as him? The only difference here is that i explained the reverts and he ignored all the details and threatened me for "vandalism". Do you call this fair?

I don't know if Zzuuzz has your talk page on their watch list, so they might not see your message. As you were told previously (by Zzuuzz, no less!), they won't see your ping if you don't sign your messages. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Please explain what did i do wrong and what is the correct way :) Jafdfm (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pings require a valid signature (~~~~) at the same time you are linking to the user. See WP:PING for details. Now, without commenting on the specifics, life is unfair deal with it, admins stop disruption not unfairness. Commenting on the specifics, it is so painfully obvious that you were continuing the edit war, after being blocked as an IP address, that it was reported by other users and your block was timed very specifically to match the IP's. And the IP block is a block I did not place. Going forward, I think what we'd be looking for is a strategy to discuss these changes without continuing the edit war. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: Can you justify why did you ask zzuuzz to block my talk page? Do you want to shut me down after the mess you created for ignoring my informations? This is not your talk page, so you can shut me down here like you did in your talk page. Jafdfm (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that, it's because you were using abusive language. Had you continued using abusive language, it may well have gone that way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, so why is the reason of the block "edit warring"? Why did other users say that i am blocked because i reverted the article 6 times and Serols did exactly the same number of times? Why do you apply the rules the same way for Serols? Is this fair to you? Jafdfm (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: FYI, i am not connected at all with the IP who insulted Serols (talk · contribs) here and i can prove that the guy who did that is not portuguese (wrong genre in some words). Jafdfm (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll just confirm that's true. C.Fred already knows this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Please explain why one user is blocked and other free considering the one who started the "edit war" had access to information and ignored it and only threatened me for "vandalism". At least i did my part of talk about the subject and explain my edit. Did he explain at all why he was accusing me of "vandalism"? Is this the correct way here when you disagree of an edit (revert, ignore the messages of the user and then ask for blocks for the user)? Jafdfm (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's count. How many times did you replace "Belenenses SAD" with "B SAD" yesterday? Let's compare it with the equivalent count for Serols doing the opposite. You go first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Ok, let's count. I did revert the articles 9 times, but it only should count 6 because twice i had to revert Serols (talk · contribs) and SLBedit (talk · contribs) who were doing edits simultaneously in the article, so it required more than one revert each time. Serols (talk · contribs) did revert times and SLBedit (talk · contribs) did also 6 times, but again it should count as only 3 times. And this is worse if you consider that they were working together, so in total they reverted the article 9 times Jafdfm (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Your turn ;) Jafdfm (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point about multiple undos being not the same as a more straightforward type of revert, which is why I phrased the question very specifically, but are you counting the IP address who made exactly the same edits as this account? That would take it back up to 9 reverts (10 edits in total). Also, I reckon SLBedit made this change twice (1 2). What am I missing? I make that 9 reverts from one user (you), 6 from another (2 of which were reverting block evasion, which a policy-compliant activity), 2 from another user, plus single reverts from 2 other users. I would say, respectfully, that the edit warring seems be centered on you. But enough of this. Going forward, are you interested in discussing changes with other users, or just reverting until you get your way? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Which IP? It was not me, so why do you center the problem in me if i only reverted one mistake done by Serols (talk · contribs)? Also, thank you for talking about discussing changes. I was the only one who did discuss anything, Serols (talk · contribs) only sent pre-made warnings to my talk page and refused to see the links i provided. The only one who did as you described "just reverting until you get your way" and this summarizes of how unfair and biased was your block towards me comparing to your attitude towards the true centre of the problem and the 2 guys insisting in the true vandalism here. In one thing i agree with you, enough of this. Tomorrow i will talk in the article's talk page and then we will see their reaction and if they want to at least check my information Jafdfm (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I made clear in a couple of previous comments, directed at Serols, who I hereby ping to make it explicit, that I was not impressed. I'm also going to loop SLBedit into the discussion because in fact I said that I was impressed by nobody. Hopefully they will take that on board. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: why the ping? For me Jafdfm's question-and-answer game is a farce. He has already received all the information 1. 2. Instead of being grateful that he only got 24 hours (for personal attacks you get a week in other Wikipedia projects), he tries to present himself here as an unsuspecting victim. My time is too precious to me to waste it on pointless and nonsensical discussions. Therefore the discussion is over for me. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: You can not be serious. You should be grateful that you got away with a "not impressed" warning because you created the edit war and did not read any of the sources I gave you. Instead I got 36 hours (not 24) of ban. If you read carefully I was not blocked for personal attacks, but I was incorrectly accused of evading block,other user and messages sent from another ip. I apologized and did the right thing, I created the discussion in the talk page of B SAD. I am waiting for your arguments there or I will assume you allow the sources and arguments I presente there. Kind regards. Jafdfm (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]