In T153275#2875117, @PrimeHunter wrote:

It nearly always works fine, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?useskin=modern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?uselang=de
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?veaction=edit

Oops. I saw a bunch of HTML and thought it was the page. Yeah, it's HTML-formatted JSON. My bad.

In T135170#2574023, @aaron wrote:

In T135170#2574015, @MZMcBride wrote:

Hmmm, why is this task still marked as open/needs triage? Is there anything left to do here?

The API I suppose.

In T143531#2571935, @Glaisher wrote:

In T143531#2571415, @Unready wrote:

Going forward, your script (or something like it) should be deployed in Common.js or maybe as a gadget on Wikipedia (etc.) ASAP. It probably would have been better to do that before requiring POST, but here we are now. The screams are only going to get louder.

.... I can submit a patch to core with that script improved to imitate the previous behavior (the exact behavior cannot be achieved since it will have to be done client-side) if someone (from Performance team?) can confirm that it can actually work reliably.

In T143531#2571231, @Glaisher wrote:

... Your expectation about GET/POST is also wrong as GET is actually supposed to be retrieving data only not for modifying; ....

In T143531#2571182, @JEumerus wrote:

To my understanding, translating GET to POST via JS is not a problem, applying GET directly to the request is, see T135170#2310146

Two questions ...

1. Is there any point to the "purge" right now?
2. Is requiring POST the first step toward requiring a token?