User talk:Enric Naval

Welcome to Meta![edit]

(very long message removed) -- Mikhailov Kusserow 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THank you very much! (I removed that very long welcome template). --Enric Naval 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope[edit]

Well, many of bad blocks made by Gwen were endorsed,but you posted made your conclusion before learning your subject. One of admins who endorsed it admitted later Gwen was responding to canvassing, and a sitting arbitrator administrator AGK found neither the block nor the agreed bans to be warranted Here's what h wrote: "Your input as an editor who had had negative interactions with Daedalus was of value. Daedalus' complaint about your comment, presuming that my assumption in point #4 is correct, was therefore without merit."--Mbz1 12:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in the request for deletion. --Enric Naval 13:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my advise to you: Never look at the block log. It proves nothing. Please take a look at this section. See the comment made by by Philippe (WMF)? And see how I have proven that the block he agreed 100% with was wrong? I am sure you, as everybody else, did not even bother to read the unfair, bullying blocks I described in my request. I have spoken up for the victims of bullying, and became a victim of bullying myself. I am proud of what I did, and if I knew what is to happen, I still would have done it because Gwen Gale is a bully admin, who is hurting people. --Mbz1 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can actually agree that this was a bad block. User should have been pointed to other articles where the text was more adequate, like the sexual trial article, or the island history article. The saddest thing is that en:Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004#Historical_background already contained similar allegations, with citations from RS. (although some sentences appear to be unsourced, like the first sentence in that section).

In this revert, Gwen Gale should have explained why the edit was wrong (original research, the source doesn't make that actual conclusion). And the editor could have made with a couple more escalating warnings with explanations, instead of going so quickly to blocking. --Enric Naval 16:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honest respond. The thing is that I strongly believe that each and every block I mentioned in RFC was a bad or a very bad block. And I asked myself a question:How many bad blocks is one too many. If you have a time, I would be interested to discuss with you the blocks described in this section.--Mbz1 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]