All nuked page that contribution by Cnrail37592114 – G5 endorsed, with the caveat that any non-banned editor is welcome to recreate verifiable content as desired, and the closing administrator is reminded to make G5 deletions explicit in the deletion log – Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
`
It has a hurdreds pages have contributions to wikipedia that mostly pages are not meeting criteria to be deleted, improve first are main pinciple of wikipedia. Please restore first, and norm for deletion or speed deletion if idvinidal page are meet the criteria regurdless of user. TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me of this. I really appreciate it. </sarcasm>
Endorse own deletions as this is exactly what we do with questionable unapproved mass article creations. We delete them all because no other method is practical. Especially when the articles are created by a sockpuppeteer who has created questionable articles before. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Cnrail37592114, for those who wish to check the history of communication with this user, who does not appear to be a native speaker of English and was active for less than two hours before being indefinitely blocked. There's no evidence that the user understood why he was blocked and some evidence that he was trying, with limited English, to engage in discussion.
Tim Song, is the sockpuppeteer allegation substantiated, or did you indefinitely block the user as a duck? I ask because while I agree with the block, I'm not convinced it needed to be indefinite. This seems to have been a genuine if misguided attempt to improve our encyclopaedia, and I would be happier if this user's case wasn't absolutely dismissed out of hand.—S MarshallT/C01:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. And looking at it again now, Tim, are you fully comfortable that sufficient efforts have been made to communicate with this user and to harness his interest in the encyclopaedia and his script-writing skills for our benefit?—S MarshallT/C08:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is our purpose to hold hands here and expect basic competence to just materialize. This person has had several accounts blocked for unapproved scripting/botting so far, and it appears that the current account, TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk·contribs) is picking up right where the former socks left off and needs admin attention. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Tarc, I can see what you're saying but I also don't agree. I mean, if the person who raises a DRV is an experienced user who's just being a wazzock, then yeah, DRV can deal with him quite sharply. That would be right. But I think most people who come to DRV are here because they genuinely think they're not being treated fairly. And this is one of those cases. DRV's not doing its job unless the person who raised the DRV goes away thinking that real scrutiny of the admin's actions has taken place, and the admin's been genuinely challenged over what s/he did, and the person who raised the DRV understands the decision we've made and all the reasons for it.
To you and me, Tim Song's actions in this case make a lot of sense and truth to tell if I was sitting where Tim Song's sitting I might well have done the same. But we've been here a while and we've got some kind of understanding of the place, and we can't expect that of everyone. That's the reason why I usually try and find some kind of reason to start a discussion about the closer's actions on most DRVs.—S MarshallT/C13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. As JustbeBPMF (talk·contribs) they mass-created a bunch of articles in November 2009 and filed a BRFA for ChinaRailwayENGED (talk·contribs) around March 31. The BRFA got rejected because all the articles ChinaRailwayENGED created before - without approval - are single-sentence unreferenced stubs. In the mean time, they created Tratra22395768 (talk·contribs) and used it to mass-create yet another set of articles. When it was brought to my attention I indef'd Tratra22395768 on March 20 until they could explain themselves, and their unblock request consisted of "I want to fill red links and let number of articles goes up". So by March 31 at the latest, they know that a BRFA is needed - because they filed one. Then Cnrail was created in June and engaged in exactly the same thing that got them blocked in the first place. You may notice that various editors have left messages for Tratra and ChinaRailwayENGED before they got blocked. They never responded to any. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that. I can also see similar contributions across several foreign-language Wikipedias. Whoever it is, the content they're creating with their script seems to be uncontroversial but doesn't comply with policy. It seems to be someone who doesn't speak English, and finds it easier to give up and come back with a new account than to try to communicate with us. I'm willing to bet money that the text at the top of this DRV is a machine translation, and the DRV request was composed a foreign language.
We've dealt with it, but we could deal with it much better if we could find out what this user's native language is and speak to them personally.—S MarshallT/C16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. No reputable machine translator could produce so many spelling errors. And if they want to speak Chinese (given that lots of their articles are on Chinese railroad stations), well, look at my userpage... T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions as valid WP:CSD#G5, but ask Tim to in future include a reference to G5 and a link to the evidence that the user was banned or block-evading, for the sake of a proper log. Allow undeletion of any of the pages on a reasonable request by an editor in good standing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
