This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fran Rogers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You deleted that article without any comment, even though there was a lot of discussion, and there was a lot of editing done by the author. I can't remember the process for requesting a deletion review, but if you can provide the link, that would be good. Mandsford (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for Deletion Review - Same-sex marriage and procreation
A page I helped startup, Same-sex marriage and procreation, you deleted with no comment, as Mandsford points out. Having made many edits in response to critiques of others, I wish to know why you deleted the article, to see if the page can be additionally edited to satisfy your concerns. Otherwise, I will be asking for a deletion review, especially since there was no explanation for the deletion. Greg Aharonian (talk), 20 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus in the AfD seemed to indicate it was a PoV fork and shouldn't be a separate article. However, I would personally be glad to move it into your userspace so that you can integrate it with same-sex marriage, if you would like. krimpet✽21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I would appreciate it if you could consider undeleting the page and let me proceed to continue the editing to make it more acceptable - the consensus was that it was on its way to being a non-PoV fork. One critic, Mandsford, indicated his satisfaction with the changes I have made to date, and a second critic, Chris, wasn't posting a new criticisms (which I assume meant he found my changes acceptable). A new critic complained, not about the explanatory language of the page, but rather that all of the court cases and legislative activities I cited were where procreation was used to justify same-sex marriage bans. In response to this new critic, indeed the day you did the delete, I was starting to expand the Wiki page to include references/quotes from laws and court decisions where procreation was NOT used to justify same-sex marriage bans. For example, I was about to add three paragraphs from a Massachusetts court decision where the judges nicely explained why procreation isn't an issue. With these additions, the Wiki page was slowly become a balanced review of all such activities around the world. I would have edited quicker, but this is a volunteer effort for me, which I do in my spare time. In fact, I don't even have a copy of the last version of the Wikipage, never figuring I had to save it, even for just myself.
I appreciate your suggestion about incorporating the page into the Same-sex marriage entry, but when I get through making further additions, the length will be too overwhelming to add into the Same-sex marriage entry. My entry is more along the lines of secondary Wikipage already spun-off from Same-sex marriage.
Thus I would appreciate it if you could reconsider the deletion, and add the page back to Wiki, at least for a few more weeks, so I can continue my edits to make it non-PoV.
Thanks. Greg Aharonian (talk), 20 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I still think a merge of some sort may be the best solution; however, I have restored the page; I agree now that there probably wasn't consensus to delete at that point. :) krimpet✽03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated - thanks. I will be continuing the edits in light of the suggestions made, and adding more third-party materials. Greg Aharonian (talk), 21 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Hetero Marriage...
Why was that Deleted?--Wolfdog 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya Krimpet. I fully agree with you that Crum375's action is ill-advised, especially considering the knowledge of how controversial it seems for him to do it. I have told him that, flat out. But PLEASE, don't get yourself in trouble if he reverts again. I have a request in to the ArbCom clerk for a decision on this. If he does it again, let it go and let's wait for cooler heads to step in. SirFozzie (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I know I'm guilty as anyone of this, by my initial revert, but please don't risk getting yourself in trouble. I did my BRD, and Now I have a request for a clerk to take a look. (wasn't aimed at you Krimpet.. just a quick message to all before we go down the edit war path) :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I admit I was a bit too edit-warry there and I shouldn't have. :/ I guess when certain editors are determined to make this project into a warzone, it's just too tempting to give in and war against them. krimpet✽18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Category:Rouge admins
Hi Fran Rogers,
I noticed that you still use the Category:Rouge admins on your userpage/usertalk page. Please consider removing it, as it has now been deleted as of this discussion. Have a nice day!
This edit [3] was a personal attack on Dmcdevitt a
nd a bit too incivilto ignore.Per WP:CIVIL and W P:NPA I'm placing a short block onyour account (6 hours) to encourage youtocool down and contribu te in a morepoliteand constructive manner. Georg ewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UT C) ...Uh.. What?????? Don't you think that's just a littleOTTthere, GWH? —Precedingunsigned com ment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Georgewilliamherbert, you are intimately involved in the same discussion and you're blocking a fellow administrator for "cool- down"? Read the goddamn blocking policy. krimpetâœ
½ 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I was also (polite ly)criticizing Dmcdevitt at the time, so I don't think there was a conflict of interest. Georgewill iamherbert (talk)04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (e c) That'stwo cool-off blocks (that I've noticed). . .there mustbe a new policy somewhere. R. Baley (talk)04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I don't thin kthis is appropriate,I'm discussing with George now. Unilaterally unblockingwould be a badidea, hopefully this can get sorted. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Also, for context, D mcdevit was rather smuglymocking Durova and her c omments in #wikipedia-en-admins at the time, which iswhat drove me to post that(admittedly not tha t helpful in hindsight) comment. krimpet✽ 04:14, 23 February2008 (UTC) Itsounds likethere's con text there Iwasn'taware of then. I hadto goby how it soundedby itself. Ah well. You'd thinktha tona wiki project, we'd have some hope of actual ly knowing everythingwe need toknow...I'm satis fied with the explanation and responseson ANI, th atI pulled thetrigger too easily on this. My apo logies for that. Iappreciatethatyouacknowledge d thatthe comment wasn't so great.Georgewilliamh erbert (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008(UTC)Well, I amall for block for incivility but thatwas har dly nearing the edge. ViridaeTalk04:40, 23 Februa ry 2008 (UTC)O since seen that that issue was res olved.Ignore me. ViridaeTalk 05:49, 23February 2 008 (UTC) ************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** **************************************************
Hi,
I've put a post regarding the block to User:PatPeter.
It is possible we are being mislead by the information derived from the statistics collation. I suspect the top summary refers to all edits across wikimedia projects. Anyway we need to check it out in more detail. How was the 48% User: namespace edits calculation derived? This may have exasperated the issue for the user by being blocked indefinately if the statistics are misleading. --Zven (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the edits do appear to be for Wikipedia only, however the totals are much higher in the summary at the top than the collation for individual Namespaces by article. --Zven (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I made those calculations using this tool. However, the statistics are no longer accurate half a year later as many of the pages he contributed to in userspace have been deleted since. (For reference, 910 out of his 1301 deleted edits are in User: alone.) krimpet✽22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, thanks for pointing that out - it's a bug. Apparently when un-tagging unblocked nodes, I forgot to read in the text of the page, so it would end up saving a blank string back to the server. This bug should now be fixed. :) krimpet✽14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My commendations on the impressive size and thickness demonstrated in your recent closing decision, which in itself was firm yet flexible. I hope to eventually make this into a valid and valuable article, but only because I couldn't find a suitable double entendre for that. --Kizor22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
MZMcBride (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
For the comment in my RfB. Despite what happened, I hope I have your trust as a Wikipedian and an admin. However, can you please point to some errors in judgment on my behalf please, as well as some decisions you disagreed with? I'd be grateful if you could point them out. Thanks. Acalamari22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I didn't notice this section here :/ I was just concerned about the behavior at the MONGO RfA, as well as some of your votes in the ArbCom elections that were "per" certain controversial Wikipedians, that concerns me whether such a bureaucrat would be able to determine consensus neutrally. I apologize :( krimpet✽01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
IP range blocks
Are you the maintainer of the rangeblock helper tool? If so, you may have access to the data required to answer my question. I've been noticing a few large range blocks (e.g. /16) recently, and I'm concerned about the collateral damage. Is it easy for you to tell me how many IPs are currently blocked in total, and how this has changed over time? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea - I think someone did these calculations before. If not, I can see what I can do :) I'll let you know what I can find. krimpet✽01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I cooked up a quick script to parse the ipblocks data - while it might not be the most accurate (particularly if any rangeblocks overlap), it says that 4595465 IP addresses are currently blocked - or 0.213% of all possible IPs. Unfortunately though I don't have any statistics for farther back - the devs might be of help here though. krimpet✽05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. So, four million potentially affected users, but a relatively small proportion of IP space. Bovlb (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I understand your concerns (and had not noticed that ongoing discussion); I had unblocked the bot after noticing it had stopped, and personally asking BC for an assurance that the task would not run unapproved again. However, I'm not sure re-blocking is a good idea - BCBot performs a very large number of important tasks (not exactly the best design, IMO, and I do hope they get separated out at some point as planned...), and leaving it blocked after it's stopped the unapproved edits is potentially quite detrimental to the workings of the project. I do hope the discussion at AN/B proves fruitful; I'm just not sure leaving the bot blocked in the meantime is a good idea :/ krimpet✽08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
MZMcBride (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The article was previously deleted under consensus for being poorly sourced. It has been several months, and the version you deleted had 2 television news sources, several newspapers, and print magazines. Please restore it so it may be put up for AfD vote. Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Zscout370 deleted the article, not me; I was in the middle of semi-protecting the article and adding a protection template when he deleted it, leaving only a blank page with a protection tag on it, so I only deleted the slight mess I made. krimpet✽08:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I have tried to install your script but I cant seem to get the 'Move this image to commons' button. Would it be possible for you to upload an image so I can see where it is meant to appear, not sure I am looking at the right place! Thanks. Tiddly-Tom07:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alison, I cant get that to appear :( Is it known to work in FireFox? Are there any other tools which serve the same purpose? Thanks :) Tiddly-Tom17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed "confirmed" as an attempt at compromise - technically only a CU or arbitrator can conclusively "confirm" sockpuppetry (hence if he is blocked, I'd go with {{sockpuppet|Mantanmoreland|blocked}} rather than {{sockpuppet|Mantanmoreland|confirmed}}), though on the other hand nobody can say with a straight face that there isn't a strong, significant community suspicion that he's a puppet, so a suspected tag is certainly appropriate. However I have no intention of modifying the page further if someone decides to revert war and remove the tag. krimpet✽21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
uCfD closing
Just to address your closing comment, I didn't disrupt Wikipedia, and I certainly didn't do it to illustrate a point. I don't even know what point I could've been trying to make, or what point someone could misconstrue my creation of that category as an attempt to make. That honestly didn't make any sense to me. I'm not contesting the deletion and I know why it needed to be deleted, but I felt your closing remark was pretty far off. Just thought I'd mention that. Equazcion•✗/C •23:06, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Riana's request for bureaucratship
Dear Krimpet, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Krimpets are actually completely unrelated to crumpets - they were named such because they were crimped on the edges to stop them from falling apart. :) krimpet✽21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just discovered your rangeblock helper and tried it. when an IP is tested, which is blocked by both an single block and a range block (or presumably inside a rangeblock, which may be a /32 block and a larger rangeblock), the program ends with an error "Multiple rangeblocks found". See here to find a list of sample IP's for testing. Please note that copy/paste of IP's from this list won't work (includes an extra nbsp to prevent crawlers to pick-up the address).
On second thought, there is quite a lot going on over there and I'm a bit confused by it. If you get a chance to take a look at the situation, I'd appreciate it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hensel page
So, um, we let people go around now chopping 3kb out of pages by revert -- including *all* the references -- for undocumented reasons? And it wasn't a revert war, no one reverted more than once that I can see. "There are good reasons and I'm not going to tell you what they are", though, is not itself a good reason. I fully expect the reverts to pick right back up again, unless someone posits a *rational* (to the denizens of that article) reason why whacking 174 edits is considered reasonable. You set the protect flag -- do you have one? --Baylink (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't want, need, or allow information on the intimate anatomical details of two teenage conjoined twins a penned by a banned sex criminal. Full stop. krimpet✽22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not going to make any accusations of criminality here, I will state that the edits were made by a banned editor who is about as banned as they get. I am highly uncomfortable reverting to his version wholesale. I've already seen this editor's comments regarding other people's children. By all means, please pick through the reverted edits piecemeal and try to make sense/add what you think necessary but we cannot allow this banned editor edit articles, especially BLP ones - Alison❤23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) I actually agreed with your nomination and would have !voted delete myself - it's a shame the community seems overwhelmingly adamant on keeping the article. :/ krimpet✽22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm investigating a request for unblock of the above user. You had placed a CU-Confirmed sockpuppet template on the user's page, however I can't find any discussion that led to the checkuser involvement. Could you provide a link to that discussion or any evidence you may have regarding it? Thanks! Hersfold(t/a/c)03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I contacted the checkuser, Dmcdevit, on IRC after blocking User:Four Thirty-Nine as a obvious puppet of MyWikiBiz - he or any other CU can confirm that the checkuser was run (note also the associated IP blocks in his admin log). Daniel and Flyguy649 were also in the channel at the time, and beat me to blocking the accounts. :p krimpet✽04:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg
I just now noticed this like 6 months after the fact, but you speedy-deleted Image:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg citing CSD I8. However, I'm unable to find any bit-for-bit copy of the image on commons, so I'm not really sure why it was deleted in the first place. I went to alot of trouble gaining GFDL permission for the use of the image, and I think it's much better than the current image on her page, so I'm wondering what the heck happened. Any clarification you could give me would be great. Drewcifer (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize - it seems the copy on Commons was actually deleted just last week as a copyvio, most likely because the OTRS request does not seem to have been confirmed. I've restored the image on Commons, and will gladly verify the permissions for you - would you happen to have the OTRS ticket number you were given when you sent the permissions e-mail? :) krimpet✽21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Unfortunately I don't know what the OTRS ticket number was, or if I even got an email confirmation at all. That was a while ago. Anything you could do would be helpful. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Drew, just send a new email to OTRS explaining the issue and the approximate date you sent the original. Krimpet or myself can then search for the ticket based on your email address. howcheng {chat}20:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you felt I was trolling you. I really wish that you would consider what I wrote, but I would never troll or harass you about it. I'd like to repeat my first comment in that thread:
"I don't hold a grudge about this, and I don't take it to reflect on your judgement over-all. I can understand how you came to the conclusions you did. But I wanted to let you know that this really bothered me."
My frustration tends to leaks through in my messages sometimes, but please know that I was sincere when I wrote you. I have a tendency to get re-caught up in things when I start to write about them, but I don't intend to further any dispute with you. I wrote those messages with the hope of gaining some form of understanding, but I'm not very good with these kind of things, and I guess I screwed that up too. -- Ned Scott23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
...and you just messed up my test for him of whether edits to user pages show up on "new messages," which was why I indicated "per IRC" in my edit summary. sigh. -_- krimpet✽04:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired
Hi, I would not have contacted you (or anyone) on this matter since there is nothing unusual from what I see regularly but because of the recent incident where you served a a judge of sorts, I figured I give you an example.
Those are all diffs from just one day (today) and the first one is especially powerful. Now, I do not have and I do not intend to develop a habit of stacking up diffs to attack Piotrus' "when I have enough" but It's just a tiny example, what Lithuanian editors have go through. I've already expressed my angst on another page.
Finally there is my question - should I run to AE with that? Should I demand "sanctions for stalking and offensive speech?
I would not have even brought this up, as I do usually ignore this stuff. But because of the recent incident, I just want to illustrate, what Lithuanian editors have to deal with on a daily basis. Regards.--Lokyz (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't delete local versions of images unless you've made sure that the Commons version contains all the information from the local version. Haukur (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Cream (talk) has put a trout your back! The Trout promotes playfullness and hopefully this one has made your day worse. You have no choice but to spread it to other editors! Happy April Fools' Day! Add this {{subst:AprilFoools}} to their talk page with a friendly fish.
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I opened a thread at AN/I about KrimpBot and Tor nodes, apparently the bot has been untagging accounts shortly before these became active and were used by a serial vandal, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q.05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm too lazy to find examples, but as a checkuser I have also found found several examples of tor nodes that were unblocked (by a human) as "no longer tor" but clearly still are. It is my understanding that some tor nodes go on and off for various reasons. What I'd really like is for whoever is making the list of "former tor nodes for unblocking" to adjust their algorithm so that nodes are checked several times before unblocking, and also to check the block log to see if an IP has been blocked as tor more than once. For example (ok, I went and found one) this IP should not be unblocked unless it stays off the active list for several consecutive checks. Thatcher13:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
