Function details: The bot will unblock IPs that were indef-blocked in 2008 or earlier. It will not undo range blocks. If abuse resumes from any particular IP, or if any admin disagrees with the unblocking of any particular IP, they should feel free to reblock following standard procedures. As the new block would have a 2019 timestamp, the bot would not re-unblock.
The current list of blocks that would be unblocked by this task is at quarry:query/35664. The unblock message that will be used is Unblocking pre-2009 indefinitely-blocked IPs per RFC. Anomie⚔ 14:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
[My questions sound harsh, but that's because I'm too ignorant to ask them more pleasantly. Please understand that I'm smiling when I write them :-)] Where did that list come from? (I suspect the dark-background text under "SQL" answers my question, but I'm not adept enough to understand it.) Are we sure that all findings are indef-blocked IPs who were last blocked on 2008-12-31 or earlier? I'm concerned that the list may include IPs that have been continuously blocked since 2008 but were indeffed after that, e.g. an IP is blocked for a year on 2008-12-01 and then its block is upped to indefinite on 2009-02-01 for some reason. (Such an IP is indef-blocked and has been blocked since 2008 or earlier, but it's not been indeffed since 2008 or earlier.) Presumably an unblock in that situation would be fine, but it apparently wouldn't be in scope of the RFC and should get human review. Also, are there any still-in-force office actions involving IP blocks? Runs in my mind that the office has previously blocked IPs for very long periods. RFC or no RFC, we can't go undoing office blocks, so this really shouldn't run without confirmation that it wouldn't affect office blocks. And finally, how will the bot operate: will it run directly off the quarry page, and if so, can anyone but Anomie edit it? I just want to make sure the bot's running from a page that can't be publicly edited, since we don't want some random person to come along and add a few IPs or usernames that shouldn't be unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Nyttend, The list was generated via a database query, as you suspected.
Office actions is an excellent point. Frankly? I don't know. That must be checked before approval for sure.
I don't want to answer for Anomie regarding how it sources the data - but looking at the source, it looks like the bot uses that query directly against toolforge's database replica. E.g. no - the query is defined in the program, and cannot be edited. The quarry is just there so that we humans can examine the data. SQLQuery me! 22:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me understand better; my concern on the editing was that Anomie might have pasted a list somewhere and that the bot was running off the list. No more objections, aside from office actions. Wikipedia:Office actions says that Maggie Dennis, User:Mdennis (WMF), is one of the Foundation staff members usually performing office actions, so I've emailed her to request input. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a fair point to ask the WMF, though I can't say I can ever recall any long term office blocks generally. What I can say for sure is that there are no relevant blocks containing "office", "foundation", or "WMF" in the block reason. I'm fairly sure any office blocks would have contained one of those words. And also, global blocks weren't implemented until 2008, but any such blocks would probably be implemented globally. -- zzuuzz(talk) 01:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Dennis said essentially "I don't think there are any such blocks" and checked with Jan Eissfeldt, who reviewed this page and said to feel free to do what's being planned here. Nyttend (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You're correct, it comes from SQL query in the dark box.
It lists blocks that have a pre-2009 timestamp on Special:ListBlocks. If there are later-extended blocks in there we have no way of detecting them. Note the RFC linked to some similar quarry queries.
I see no comments with reason fields containing "office", "Office", "OFFICE", or "WP:OA", or where the blocking username contains "WMF". I adjusted the quarry query to include the reasons so you can check yourself if you want.
Nope, just at least a week. The trial is "done" but there is certainly to rush on this. — xaosfluxTalk 14:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Hey xaosflux, your last sentence reads a bit weird; did you mean to say there is certainly [no need] to rush on this or were you intending to convey something like it is better to get this done sooner rather than later? eπi (talk | contribs) 21:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@E to the Pi times i: yes, typo - I put 'on hold' so it is clear that while the trial is done, I want more time for comments. There is no urgency on this task. — xaosfluxTalk 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me (very not BRFA person). --qedk (t桜c) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)