It appears to be somewhat random, however it throws an exception that breaks my script and I have to keep restarting it. So yes, it is a significant time loss.

Getting a lot of these tonight, which is unfortunate because it keeps stopping the bot and I have to manually restart it.

@Dreamy_Jazz thanks for looking into this. The master list of all the pages is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery. (I'm having issues pasting the links in my browser).

And also https://sk.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiknihy:Klub.

And sometimes https://sa.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%253A%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D

And https://pa.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks%253A%E0%A8%B8%E0%A9%B1%E0%A8%A5

And https://ml.wikibooks.org/wiki/വിക്കി_പുസ്തകശാല:Community_Portal

Also https://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/Викикниги:Портал_на_заедницата

Also seeing some missing messages at https://gl.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:A_Taberna&action=history

Propose the implementation of the standard bot policy

In T71607#728172, @Jackmcbarn wrote:

If you can edit cascading-protected pages, you can protect arbitrary pages by transcluding them in cascading-protected pages. This makes it equivalent to protect anyway, so there's no reason to split the rights. WONTFIX. (And I think this is also a duplicate of something, though I'm not sure which offhand).

This has come up in a current permissions discussion with the global interface editor group, where that group has the ability to protect pages on all wikis. I do not think they should have the ability to do this.

In T282624#7080527, @Xaosflux wrote:

In T282624#7080456, @Rschen7754 wrote:

I assume there are legitimate reasons for this, along the lines of: 1) nothing is making bureaucrats check to make sure 2FA is enabled for interface admins before granting 2) bureaucrats also are not required to have 2FA at present.

But I can guarantee you that a sudden deployment like this with no communication/community discussion is going to generate a lot of pushback, and for very good reason.

Well both of those are easy enough to fix with T265726 for (1) and requiring such for (2). Keep in mind that even this change will not require that stewards actually check for 2FA, nor prevent int-admins from dis-enrolling.

I assume there are legitimate reasons for this, along the lines of: 1) nothing is making bureaucrats check to make sure 2FA is enabled for interface admins before granting 2) bureaucrats also are not required to have 2FA at present.

As a point of order, if this request came from a wiki that only had 10 admins and 2 bureaucrats, I don't think it would be taken seriously even if there was consensus. Especially after https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Userrights_on_Hindi_Wikipedia.

Phabricator is not the right place to "evaluate" consensus that has already been evaluated by the community.

This is done all the time; proper community consensus is required to handle all site requests on Phabricator. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_configuration_changes. (As a disclosure, I did oppose this proposal.)

As a note for the future, the Main Page should remain as-is with the warning to wait to edit until importing has taken place. It should probably be reverted right now.

Seems to be a duplicate of T232753

I'm not sure, I know Erwin's tool worked that way but I'm not sure if mine did.

@MarcoAurelio It actually works for me, it is just super slow.

I got it working. I had to do the following:

This doesn't seem to work. This works:

In T150826#4779917, @Krenair wrote:

yeah if an attacker gains control over an account without 2FA, but finds themselves restricted by not having 2FA on the account, they could just enable it :/

In T150826#4779881, @Huji wrote:

In T150826#4779676, @Tgr wrote:

Or perhaps, only those of them who have 2FA enabled?

It was an Echo notification - "A page you created was linked to on Wikimedia Commons"

Maybe some sort of rate limit/captcha on high-visibility items?

So far so good, some of the pages are working again, and others are working after a purge. I'm still monitoring the script errors category.

In fact, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:WikiProject_Roads/United_States/California&oldid=276427363 was working as of November 2015. Something changed in Wikibase between then and now, more likely closer to now (I only noticed this in the last few weeks).

I lost track of whether it was possible to create the property yet or not.

I worry that this would quickly turn into https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Userrights_on_Hindi_Wikipedia.

Maybe not on test wikis, since there might be a legitimate purpose there?

@Yurik "Yes, the rules are slightly different, but I doubt there will be many fundamental disagreements about the data." How do you know this for sure? I can think of several cases off the top of my head where it would be different. Take California state highways: sometimes the road still exists, but is no longer a state highway. One of the fundamentals of good programming is accounting for corner cases, rather than trying to shoehorn everything into one paradigm/user story.

Isn't this relying on OpenStreetMap for data though, outside of our control? I don't think this is the right way to go.

@putnik Any updates?

This would still be helpful so that other operators could run the bot.

@MarcoAurelio I've given you access to hat-collector on toollabs so you can copy it over.

I believe everything was copied over to the stewardbots project before I stepped down, though unfortunately I don't remember the details and I suppose it could have gotten broken in the labs chaos.

Enforcing a conversion to a geodatabase format without any migration path is not a good idea, however, and will lead to the loss of data or a reluctance to migrate data to Wikidata.

It is hard to say, since this is (according to my understanding) a security issue, and because it is not clear how Wikidata will affect this.