Final (131/69/10) Ended Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:03:54 UTC
Just for public record - there is an method in the code for sysops to stop this bot from operating. You edit a checkpage just like you do w/ AWB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tawker ( talk • contribs) .
TawkerbotTorA ( talk · contribs) - the Script that likes to be called a bot (not fully automated - manually run) – Ok, this is not a human RFA. Jimbo was talking to Werdna about an automatic tor blocking bot that blocks the tor proxies listed on http://tor.noreply.org/tor/. It's a pain in the ass for human editors to do it... hence a bot is a lot better. It's a pretty much idiot proof bot, the code's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA/code. However, as you might assume, it requires +sysop to do it's deed hence this RfA is being made - Jimbo doesn't want to overide community consensus. Any questions post away. One important note... this is NOT Tawkerbot2 - the two bots are totally unique (Tawkerbot2 is python, TawkerbotTorA in c#) Tawker 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The bot is developed by me, and operated by Tawker (who was mean enough to name it after himself). We will be in full consultation, and ideally will both have shutoff rights. Just to note, this blocks the Tor users anonymous-only, with account creation disabled. This combination was suggested by Jimmy. — Werdna talk criticism 00:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
if ( (AccessPolicy.Contains("accept *:*") || AccessPolicy.Contains("accept *:80") ) && !AccessPolicy.Contains("reject *:80"))
So in short, yes, it blocks only exit nodes. — Werdna talk criticism 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
As this bot is a stop-gap, and must be replaced by a proper extension (that I will write), the developers refuse to create such a flag. — Werdna talk criticism 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
this is messedrocker
(talk)
00:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
reply