In T199474#5003716, @GeoffreyT2000 wrote:

The part about rc_bot has already been fixed with https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/494619/. Perhaps
Jack Phoenix and Lewis Cawte could also make a similar patch that fixes the problem for rc_patrolled.

On my TODO list when I clear this week's coursework off my list... that's assuming no one gets to it first.

I think this got shelved from our director's meeting due to more pressing matters and never ended up back on the agenda. Given that I'm the sole director now, I'd sign this if this access is something that's still possible (although I'm guessing the NDA may have been updated since June 2015?)

I'll let you guys in on a little trick I don't like publicizing, we've got a tool so it can be done on wiki as well! It's called Special:RefreshSpecial. I'd suggest, particularly on Brickipedia, if you're going to run them all (and I'd suggest you not do it excessively either), run OrphanedPages separately. I've not run it on Brickipedia since, well, probably August, but one of the pages takes a long time to populate and I'm pretty sure it's that one.

Breaking runs of fairly big maintenance scripts like runJobs and refreshLinks isn't a great idea...

ShoutWiki has enough resources to support Semantic MediaWiki, since Brickimedia now lives there this task is invalid.

Brickimedia doesn't use CloudFlare anymore.

I missed a config line. Sorted.

Transferring the domain to me (as I said I'd foot the bill a few times) is probably the easiest in the long run.

Sure, we need access to the DNS before we can do anything (pretty much all the prep work is done)

I'm happy to look into this... probably later today.

In T146588#2665741, @ashley wrote:

Also the whole User blog: namespace is a Wikia-ism adopted by Brickipedia for whatever reason that is beyond my comprehension; BlogPage by default puts the blogs into the Blog: namespace and this isn't currently configurable (and I quite honestly don't see why it would need to be, do we really have so much blog activity that we somehow explicitly need to mention that it is a user blog (as opposed to...a site blog?) post written by user Foo?).

In T139322#2490830, @Danny_B wrote:

Apart from empty history of the project, the lack of reaction from the team actualy clearly shows that the project is unused.

The only people with access to fix this (to my knowledge) are @Ajraddatz and @georgebarnick. Please stop assigning this to anyone and everyone.

So we decided in principle that the company is happy to go ahead with this, pending the signing of NDAs to the company by people with access to the server.

Cherrypicked this on to REL1_26 as it was breaking ShoutWiki.

@Aklapper It's on the agenda for the next board meeting, as we never agreed we'd actually sign it as a company.

In T101017#1749898, @csteipp wrote:

Sorry, I dropped this one.

I talked with legal, and we should be able to do that for Shoutwiki. @lcawte, do you know who at Shoutwiki would have signing authority for something like that? You?

In T101017#1326978, @Krenair wrote:

@lcawte is fine, but as it seems the intention here is that you'd be patching ShoutWiki a few days before public release, who (if anyone) else would have access to the private patches live on the server? I think they'd need a WMF NDA too while private MediaWiki security patches are there.

Issue present in 1.25.1.

In T100024#1364833, @Aklapper wrote:

@UltrasonicNXT, @lcawte:

This task has been "Unbreak now!" priority for more than two weeks.
A patch is available but has not been reviewed yet.

The definition of "Unbreak now" is "to be fixed immediately".

Please either review/merge the patch or correct the priority value of this task. Thank you!

In T101017#1326908, @Qgil wrote:

Hi @lcawte, please go to {L2} and sign digitally.

So for some reason, this just generated a JSON for all of the skin resource loader modules.

In T100179#1307357, @Krenair wrote:

Which wikis is it deployed on...?

Can't reproduce.