Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag 4
De-flag
Following the first, second and third bot de-flagging run, an analysis of bot activity has been performed, and provided a list of bots without edits/actions in the last 2 years.
While we do not have a local bot de-flagging policy as of yet, this follows the precedent set in the first three deflagging runs, where we tentatively agreed to remove bot flags from accounts unused for a period as significant as two years.
As is the case with inactivity run for sysops, each and every owner of this request will be informed by posting a message on their talk page and sending them an e-mail.
To do
- Create list & start request:
Done - Notify users via talk: Done
- Notify operators via mail: Done
- Deflag accounts: Done
Affected bots
The following accounts are flagged as bots and have been inactive for more than two years:
No reaction since last run
Operators of following bots haven't replied in the request (
) in the last run:
Discussion
What is the point of this? It seems like it's just a waste of people's time. Yes, I am in fact planning on using my bot account in the near future to do a mass upload from the Folger Shakespeare Library. But I don't get GLAM contributions every year. Who does? Frankly I find it sad that volunteers are having to spend time justifying their bots flags instead of doing more productive work. What is the danger of someone having a bot that is inactive for more than 2 years? What problems has this actually caused? It seems like it is just red tape and bureaucracy that will drive away volunteers. Sorry for posting such a rant, but I really don't understand the purpose of this. Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I also plan on using my bot in the near future again. Tasks, usually mass typo-corrections, come in irregularly, and as long as bot operators are actually competent enough to not destroy the project there should not be any need to deflag. As far as I know we haven't needed strict "policing" per se, and when we do run into rogue bots, they get taken care of rather quickly and without much bureaucracy involved. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (GMT)
- Same, it's convenient to have an already flagged bot for when someone has a request on IRC or some other medium. Legoktm (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this process, and it is sad to see that my bot is inactive for more than two years now (time is running!). I plan to organize photo contests this year again, and I would like to use my bot for this activity. If you decide to deflag my bot, I will accept it, and I will request the flag later, when I need it again. Samat (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that you remove the bot flag from Stefan2bot. The bot isn't currently editing on this project, and I assume that the flag will be re-added should I ever submit a new bot request. I currently only need a bot flag on enwiki, but not here. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know about this, @Stefan. Do feel free to apply for the flag again when the need arises. odder (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Yah, more red tape to drive active contributors away. User:BotMultichillT is my labs version of User:BotMultichill so I would like to keep that around. For the other accounts, if you want to make sure I never use them again, sure, deflag them. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I may use WillieBot (talk · contribs) to assist the Picture of the Year team if needed. —Mono (how to reply) 02:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I gave some positive feedback on COM:BN for the way deflagging of old accounts was being handled. To be honest if you have odd accounts that you leave unused for over 2 years, you may want to rationalize them a little bit, or at least refresh their descriptions before you start operating them again. I would hope that 'crats will reflag bots with a good history, just by the operator informally asking for the flag at BN or similar and not have to jump through hoops of filling out bureaucratic requests. Perhaps someone that does this sort of reflagging could confirm here that the process will be this simple? @Odder: as the most likely respondent. --Fæ (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Commented there. In short: yes, if reasonable and possible per policy. --Krd 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good to hear, sounds like a friendly way of handling flags. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up, @Fæ. As you might have noticed, our process of approving bot requests has gotten faster and simpler over the past few years, and in particular over the last year or so, thanks to the continued involvement of Eugene and Krd. So while new bot operators already have an easier time getting their tasks approved and their bots flagged, I see no real need to have proven and trusted bot operators to go through this — albeit simplified — process again. I think that a simple request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard would generally suffice to re-flag an unused bot unless there are obvious reasons not to do so (ie. original flag was lost „under the cloud“). We have in the past accepted returning administrators after a 48-hour period for feedback, and I think we could use the same period for returning bots without much hindrance. P.S. For documentation purposes, let's just make sure that such requests are always submitted to the bureaucrats' noticeboard rather than a user's talk page or via private e-mail or any other medium. odder (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good to hear, sounds like a friendly way of handling flags. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- SQLbot hasnt finished its task, however the remaining uploads are much harder to process requiring more software enhancements. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Done, see above. --Krd 11:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)