@Pginer-WMF, As per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Actions#Warning

The user is warned that their edit may not be appreciated, and is given the opportunity to submit it again. You may specify a specific system message containing the warning to display.

This does not mean that publishing happened in the first attempt. In the second attempt it will succeed. Abusfilter has a counter to make this working.
So your understanding of "user gets the impression that publishing just didn't worked." may not be accurate.

Perhaps, if the abusfilter retuned error is of type "warning", we can change the message according to that - to indicate that user may retry by fixing the issues or if they are sure about change, try publish again.

In T124763#1968504, @santhosh wrote:

This does not mean that publishing happened in the first attempt. In the second attempt it will succeed. Abusfilter has a counter to make this working.
So your understanding of "user gets the impression that publishing just didn't worked." may not be accurate.

Perhaps, if the abusfilter retuned error is of type "warning", we can change the message according to that - to indicate that user may retry by fixing the issues or if they are sure about change, try publish again.

What I was proposing is that if CX gets an error of type "warning", CX tries to publish again automatically. Then, after the content is published, the user is informed that the publishing happened with warnings (and encourages the user to fix them). This makes sense if we are confident that users are going to correct the issues afterwards since it provides less friction.

However, it is hard to anticipate if it is safe to inform the user afterwards for all kinds of warnings. So we can play safe and show a popover confirmation first (as shown in the second mockup). It would be great to measure how often users just click on "publish anyway", which can inform our decision of removing this step in the future.